Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PRIVATE BILLS (PROCEDURE)

Motion made,
That—

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House or was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament shall have leave to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the present Session;
(2) every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
(3) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Parliament;
(4) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;
(5) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill had been read a second time in the last Parliament) to have been read a second time and—

(i) if such Bill had been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the last Parliament, it shall stand so referred;
(ii) if such Bill had been referred to a Committee during the last Parliament and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall stand committed and—

(a) all Petitions against the Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session, subject to the determination of any outstanding objection to the locus standi of any petitioner; and
(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;

(iii) if such Bill had been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it had been reported with Amendments in the last Parliament and had not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
(iv) if such Bill had been read the third time in the last Parliament, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;


(6) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and to which this Order relates;
(7) when any Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and to which this Order relates is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) unless the Examiner had reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;
(ii) if the Examiner had so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it had been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but 
(iii) if the Bill had been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the last Parliament it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as had been made thereto by the Committee in the last Parliament, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(8) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
(9) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which had not been withdrawn or had been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the present Session;
(10) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;
(11) where any Standing Order had been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the last Parliament, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;
(12) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill in the last Parliament shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the present Session;
(13) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the last Parliament.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 10 June.

WAYS AND MEANS

SESSIONAL RETURNS

Ordered,
Returns for Session 1996–97 of—
(1) Business of the House;
(2) Closure of Debate and Allocation of Time;
(3) Private Bills and Private Business;
(4) Public Bills;
(5) Sittings of the House;
(6) Special Procedure Orders;
(7) Standing Committees;
(8) Select Committees; and
(9) Delegated Legislation and Deregulation Proposals, &c.
in the same terms as the Orders made on 29th October 1996.—
[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CONTINGENCIES FUND ACCOUNTS 1995–96

Ordered,
Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1995–96, showing:—
(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1996.
(2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

Single Regeneration Budget

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the publication of regional guidance for those bidding under the single regeneration budget. [444]

The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We will publish further guidance to spell out the principles on which the fourth round of the single regeneration budget will be taken forward. Those principles are a requirement that proposals should contribute to our commitment to attack the multiple causes of economic and social decline; a greater emphasis on tackling need; and a requirement that proposals take account of existing strategies for promoting economic development and tackling deprivation.

Mr. Vaz: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment to all three of his new posts? I am sure that he will serve in all of them with great distinction. May I also welcome the Government's emphasis on the regional nature of their guidance? I hope that this is the beginning of a process that will bring an end to the lottery system that has pitted our towns and cities against one another in an unfair competition, and has resulted in great hardship for those who have not been successful. When my right hon. Friend publishes his guidance, will he ensure that it is as accurate and as detailed as possible to make up for the shambles and chaos that has been the hallmark of the Conservative Government's regeneration policies in the past 18 years?

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He has established a considerable reputation on the issue of urban regeneration. I attended many of the conferences that he helped to organise. I assure him that we will not entertain the sort of beauty contest that we had for regeneration schemes under the previous Administration. We are more concerned about how our policy can be developed in the regions, how we should deal with need and the consequences for urban regeneration schemes of the release of capital receipts. Our criteria will be different.
As to the mess created by the previous Administration, if my hon. Friend would like to come and talk to me, perhaps we can spell out in detail how our policies contrast with those of the previous Government.

Mr. Fallon: Will the new guidance include guidance on regional selective assistance? Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he has succeeded or failed in his attempt to take that responsibility by mugging the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Prescott: Our regional schemes will reflect the importance that we attach to regional development, as was shown by our announcement on regional development agencies. That is one of the clear differences between the


policies of the current Government and those of the previous Administration. As to whether grants cause any problems between my right hon. Friend and me, that is merely press gossip. It is easy to reach agreement on these matters to ensure that we have a proper regional policy, so as to achieve greater prosperity in the regions and to get more people back to work. There are regional development agencies for Scotland and Wales, but they were denied to the English regions by the previous Government.

Mr. William O'Brien: When my right hon. Friend reviews the single regeneration budget, will he take into consideration the devastating effect that the pit closure programme has had on many regions? Will he also consider whether the coal-mining industry could be developed in some of the areas in which coal mines have been closed? There is a golden opportunity to create jobs in those areas. There is room for discussion on the development of the coal-mining industry. We should end the lottery of the single regeneration budget. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that areas of gross deprivation are given serious consideration in any changes that he introduces?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that that is what we will want to do.
I do not think that anyone who visits any of the pit areas that have been decimated by the closure of the coal industry can fail to be moved by the desperate circumstances in which the pit villages exist. That is why we need a regional strategy. Regeneration—even the work that has been done by the Coal Board, to a certain extent—needs to be included in the plans for that strategy, so that we can meet the needs caused by the deprivation that has resulted largely from the policies of the last Administration.

Parish Councils

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role he envisages for parish councils in rural areas. [445]

The Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Parish councils have two main roles: to represent community views and to deliver important local services. They are of particular value in representing and serving small, tightly knit communities in rural areas.

Mr. Spring: Given the Government's clear attack on country pursuits and the rural way of life, may I tell the Minister how much my constituents welcome the recent extension of powers for parish councils in rural areas? They believe that the new powers are the essence of local democracy, and they certainly do not want a regional assembly for East Anglia which would be costly for the taxpayer and would constitute yet another layer of bureaucracy.

Ms Armstrong: Many myths continue to prevail on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps Opposition Members will eventually learn that many people in rural areas voted for Members of Parliament who now sit on the Government Benches.
We made it clear in our manifesto—and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear—that regional assemblies will be introduced only if they have the support of local people. People will be given the opportunity to ask for a regional assembly and, indeed, to vote on whether they want one. That, however, is not in the current programme. The current Bill deals only with regional development agencies.

Council House Sale Receipts

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities regarding the phased release of council house sale receipts. [446]

Mr. Rammell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his proposals to release the capital receipts from the sale of council houses. [447]

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to release capital receipts for housing. [448]

Mr. Prescott: The Local Government (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill lays the basis for the Government's capital receipts initiative. The Bill itself is simply an enabling measure that provides for previously set aside capital receipts to be taken into account when supplementary credit approvals are issued. A consultation document, which will be available shortly, will set out our detailed implementation proposals. We will be considering all representations received during that consultation exercise very carefully. A number of local authorities, however, have already written expressing their support for the initiative.

Mr. Hanson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both his appointment and his Bill. Many local authorities will welcome the Bill, as it will give them an opportunity to build houses for rent, to modernise old housing stock and to provide many building workers with real jobs in the community to help to alleviate unemployment. Can my right hon. Friend say how many housing starts he expects in the forthcoming terms of the Labour Government, so that we may compare the Labour Government's record of success with the abject failure of the Conservative Government?

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I assure him that those idle resources can now be used effectively to put people to work and to build houses for those in the community. The measure of the success of that, in terms of both housing and putting people to work, will soon be clearly evident to all who study the position. The amount of resources that will be available—phased in over a period—will be determined in the Budget, and we must therefore wait for the Budget.

Mr. Rammell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement about capital receipts, which is long overdue. People in my constituency, Harlow, have been waiting for 18 years to hear it. I know from experience in my constituency—and, indeed, from work undertaken


recently by the School for Advanced Urban Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—that people are more likely to remain unemployed, particularly young people, if they are trained only up to NVQ2 level. To get secure long-term employment, training to at least NVQ3 level is necessary. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the release of council receipts will be tied in some way to training provision and NVQ qualifications so that people in my constituency and elsewhere will get the benefit not only of new and renovated homes but of an important step along the road of the Government's programme for welfare into work?

Madam Speaker: The best questions are the very short ones.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point which will condition the phasing of the resources. The shortage of skills in the building industry requires to be addressed. We are short of every kind of skill, and that is the legacy of 18 years of Tory government. I assure my hon. Friend that the money will provide not only jobs and homes but will be used to train our people in the proper skills so that they can contribute to providing jobs.

Mr. Hutton: I also warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Does he agree that his answers have confirmed the importance that we attach to improving our social housing sector? They will be a welcome boost to the building industry in my constituency and good news for the thousands of families in the Furness area who live in local authority homes.

Mr. Prescott: They will be good news, and I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend says. Releasing such resources gives the Government a great opportunity to make changes in various areas. Those changes may be to the quality of houses or to the quality of production in the industry. They will also make a difference to the number of people who are available for training in building industries. The opportunity provided for the industry is that we will be able to guarantee resources over a longer time than the industry would normally expect for its housing programme. That will give a firm start to a good programme for houses and jobs.

Mr. Jack: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the use of capital receipts will represent an increase in public expenditure on current published totals? What will be the effect of their use on the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Prescott: I think that that was supplementary question No.2 in the document that was given to Conservative Back Benchers. [Interruption.] Clearly, the use of those receipts will lead to an increase in public expenditure, and we shall have close discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that matter. Make no mistake about it: we fought an election on the receipts being released to improve housing. That will happen, and in five years the public will judge us not only on public expenditure but on decent housing and on getting people back to work. Those are our criteria.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Bill that he mentioned is a Great Britain

Bill rather than a United Kingdom one. There is also a housing problem in Northern Ireland, especially about repairs. What discussions has he initiated with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that the benefits that will flow from that Bill are also applied in the Province?

Mr. Prescott: Capital receipts in Wales, for example, will be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Wales. They are dealt with differently in Scotland where there will be separate discussions between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also conduct such discussions with the Chancellor.

Mr. Maples: The right hon. Gentleman describes the receipts as idle resources. Does he agree that they generate interest which helps to defray interest on outstanding local government loans or, alternatively, help to reduce council tax? If they are spent, the inevitable consequence of the loss of interest is that tax will go up.

Mr. Prescott: Those are the matters of concern which we are discussing with the Chancellor. The constant concerns of Conservative Members are interest payments and money. We are concerned about jobs and houses, and that is the fundamental difference between us.

Mr. Levitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the phased release of capital receipts from the sale of council houses will be welcomed throughout the country, not just for the reasons given, but because it will give local authorities the opportunity to refurbish housing stock that has design deficiencies and that, in many cases, has been waiting far too many years for refurbishment? There are examples of that in my constituency. I am sure that councils would also welcome clarification on whether the rules on the spending of those receipts apply in the same way to accumulated receipts as to future receipts.

Mr. Prescott: Like many hon. Members, I have buildings in my constituency that have not been constructed to proper standards and cause great problems. It causes great offence to our constituents when we tell them that we cannot do anything, despite money being available in the accounts. We intend to release it so that we can say to our constituents, "The resources are there. We will put unemployed building workers to work to provide you with housing and refurbishment." This is about quality housing and that is what we intend to have.

Mr. Gummer: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about future receipts? Will a proportion of the receipts have to be set aside by local authorities, or will they be able to spend them?

Mr. Prescott: Again, the amounts of money that are available to local authorities to spend will be in our proposals on the phased release. It will be depend on those discussions. The amount available in total per year will be divided accordingly. We will make those decisions in good time and inform hon. Members in good time, when we produce the Bill.

Standard Spending Assessments

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce measures to increase the total standard spending assessments in areas of high unemployment. [449]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We will introduce measures that will lead to a fairer distribution of grant. Unemployment currently forms part of the economic index used in the calculation of standard spending assessments. That is one of the aspects of SSAs that we are reviewing this year, and we have notified the Local Government Association that we will do so in consultation with the assn. The Government are also committed to supporting areas of high unemployment through the welfare-to-work programme.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when we were a party of protest for 18 years and sat on the Opposition Benches, we used to regale the Tories and anyone else who cared to listen about the fact that Westminster and Wandsworth were getting money that should have gone to areas of high unemployment and to city areas that were deprived of money? Now that we are no longer a party of protest but a party of power, will my hon. Friend give guarantees, alongside those that he has already given, that areas of high unemployment, such as coalfield areas, will benefit and that places such as Westminster will not get the sort of money that they have received in the past?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Most fair-minded observers are shocked by a system that ensures that Westminster, which contains some of the most affluent areas in our country, features at number four in the social index ranking, whereas Bolsover features only in 322nd position. That is clearly not a just arrangement and we certainly intend to re-examine Westminster's treatment by the previous Administration.

Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the fact that not only urban areas but rural areas suffer from unfairness? One of the major unfairnesses is the area cost adjustment. Will he reopen the review on the basis not of Professor Elliott's review, which, when asked the wrong question produced the wrong answer, but of a fair reflection of the costs of unemployment?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about one of the many intricacies of the local government finance system and he will not be surprised to know that we have entered into discussions with the Local Government Association about a range of issues; indeed we have mentioned the area cost adjustment. However, complex considerations need to be considered carefully and he will understand that we are going to do that before reaching any firm decision on the matter.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. In addition to looking at areas of high unemployment with the change in formula, will he look at areas with high ethnic minority populations to ensure that they get a fair share of the redistribution of grant?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend will be aware that the presence of significant numbers of people from ethnic

minorities is one of the factors taken into account in the indices used to calculate SSAs. It is one of the considerations that indicate a need for expenditure by local authorities. Clearly, in our review of those indices, we are considering that factor along with the other factors, in particular the issue of unemployment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred.

Mr. Curry: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House the assurance that if a local authority's SSA reduces because of a change in methodology, that decline will be limited by damping and will he confirm that he will continue the established practice of limiting the reduction to a maximum of 2 per cent?

Mr. Raynsford: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have already mentioned the issue of damping in our preliminary discussions. No decisions have been reached and we will need to discuss all those concerns much more fully with the relevant bodies, in particular the Local Government Association, before we reach final decisions on the review that we are currently undertaking.

Countryside

Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to begin a process of consultation leading to greater access to the countryside. [450]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): In our manifesto, we made it clear that our policies for the countryside include greater freedom for people to explore our open countryside. We are considering the options for giving effect to our policies, and we intend to issue a consultation paper on our proposals in the summer. The principle of access is not negotiable, but we shall take full account of views expressed about how it should be put into effect. We shall make sure that the measures we introduce are practical and of lasting benefit to the people of this country.

Mr. Tipping: I welcome my right hon. Friend to this important subject. Will he pursue this path with vigour, but be mindful of the obstacles that lie in the way, some of which have been frustrating legislation since 1884? In view of that, will he consult widely so that a balanced view can be reached which listens to all the voices that make demands on the countryside?

Mr. Meacher: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his long-term interest in the subject and his experience last year with his Access to the Countryside Bill. That is experience on which we are building. I take my hon. Friend's point and that is why we have said that we will set in hand a full consultation which will extend through the summer. We will be inviting submissions up to the end of November. We will be listening carefully to all interests because I am aware that this is politically contentious. Having listened to all those interests and


sought to achieve the best consensus we can, we will bring forward legislation, but I believe that it will not be in this Session.

Mr. Sayeed: Does the hon. Gentleman support the right to roam?

Mr. Meacher: Yes.

Mr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that the best way that people in the countryside, particularly those such as the Country Landowners Association and others, could carry forward the debate would be to encourage far more voluntary access agreements in the next 12 months? That would show good intent on their part and might make negotiations between all the parties much easier.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad to say that the Country Landowners Association has already provided an initiative by extending voluntary access in a number of cases. I hope to talk to the CLA shortly about the success of those initiatives so that we can build on them. It is also important to look at how those voluntary initiatives, which have been willingly agreed and entered into, can be fitted into the nationwide pattern of access that we are now intending.

Biodiversity

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's programme for enhancing biodiversity. [451]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): The Government are fully committed to carrying forward the work of the biodiversity convention, both domestically and internationally. In the UK, our immediate priorities are the implementation of the published species and habitat action plans and the provision of further guidance on local biodiversity action plans. Internationally, the UK has a significant aid programme in support of biodiversity objectives and we will be hosting an international biodiversity workshop in the autumn.

Mr. Boswell: I thank the hon. Lady for her answer. Will she remember, arising from the earlier exchanges, that the interests of biodiversity and access are not always identical? Can the hon. Lady bring herself to pay an appropriate tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for his efforts at the Rio summit and for introducing the biodiversity initiative in this country? Will she also pay tribute to local interests such as non-governmental organisations and the voluntary sector as well as local authorities for taking these matters forward?
Finally, does the hon. Lady accept our assurance that if she takes the programmes forward and continues to resource and encourage them, she will have wide support in all parts of the House?

Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am only too happy to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for

Suffolk, Coastal for the work that he did in this important area. However, success depends on partnerships at both national and local level. While we are delivering the 116 endangered species action plans and the habitat protection plans, we must remember that there are other important issues, such as the reform of the common agricultural policy and global pollution and we will be taking action on those matters in the next few months. I look forward to the Opposition's support in all those areas.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: In the approach to the United Nations General Assembly special session, one contentious issue for developing countries will be the lack of financial support from the developed world for their work on biodiversity. Will the Minister work with the Department for International Development to secure additional funds for that work from the United Kingdom? We could then play a leading role in taking forward biodiversity internationally and in helping those developing countries, rather than simply watching them destroy the natural rain forests and other unique habitats.

Angela Eagle: Partnership at both national and global level is crucial if there is to be reasonable progress. My Department is already working closely with the new Department for International Development to take forward the important issues referred to by the hon. Gentleman, with whose observations I agree. Work is continuing and I hope that it will reach a reasonable conclusion at many of the international forums to which we will be contributing over the next year and beyond.

Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Lady deal with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about how she believes it will be possible easily to enhance greater biodiversity in, for example, the uplands of Britain if there is to be unrestrained access?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating—in line with his very exaggerated personality—the implications of the right to roam as expressed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment in his earlier answer. We are talking not about unrestricted access, but about access to the countryside—with that right to access being balanced by a responsibility to look after the countryside when one is in it. We are undertaking extensive consultation on the matter. The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate to make a point.

Mr. Clappison: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment and thank her for her generous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, which I believe was appropriate.
I urge the hon. Lady to stick to the conservation targets contained in the biodiversity action plans. Will she give priority to encouraging other countries to follow our lead, especially through measures such as the Darwin initiative?

Angela Eagle: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I agree with much of what he said and also to confirm my earlier tribute. I was interested to discover that the Darwin initiative is, as we speak, exporting British knowledge and expertise. For example, it is currently involved in a scheme for the sustainable support of—[Interruption.] No, not birds, but seahorses in the Philippines.

Mobile Telephone Masts

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that areas of outstanding natural beauty and other sensitive areas are protected from the effects of commercial development in the form of mobile telephone masts. [452]

The Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government are committed to protecting the environment, particularly areas of outstanding natural beauty and other protected areas where development can be intrusive. In my Department's "Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications", we encourage local planning authorities to propose specific policies in their development plans for siting telecommunications development, having regard to the Department's guidance on the need to protect the environment.

Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment and thank him for his response. May I also press him—as I pressed Ministers in the previous Government—on the concerns expressed in my constituency over imminent development, pending a planning inquiry, in what is known as Constable country? Does he agree that development of telecommunications masts in that area would be inappropriate? Will he stand by the assurance given by his predecessor that masts, even if they are sited outside an AONB, should be a material consideration for the planning inquiry to consider if they loom over an AONB?

Mr. Caborn: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, as he has long been campaigning on that issue. He will know that the previous Government initiated consultation. That is now almost complete, and the results should be on my desk in the next few weeks. I shall ensure that my Department corresponds with him on the findings. It would be wrong for me to intervene now in any planning inquiry, but I shall consider seriously any results that I receive. There should be discussions with the industry on whether we can rationalise some of the carrying equipment so that there is joint rather than single use, which I know has been one of his concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Air Transport Strategy

29. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to develop a national air transport strategy. [474]

Mr. Prescott: The Government will pursue aviation policies that support United Kingdom industry and benefit the consumer. Over the coming weeks, I shall be examining the role of aviation within our overall transport policies.

Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and I add my congratulations on his appointment. I am

sure that he will acknowledge the significance of regional airports as an important part of the nation's transport infrastructure. Will he therefore ensure that their importance across the UK and internationally is rightly reflected in his aviation strategy?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and I can assure him that the regional dimension of most decisions—whether they are on the environment or transport issues—will be considered very seriously. Regional airports have a major part to play and they were identified in the 1985 airports policy White Paper. We are continuing to ensure that they play an important part in UK aviation policy.

Mr. Chidgey: In his strategy, does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise the threat to our environment caused by the increase in air travel? Does he realise that a key factor in controlling that environmental impact is control and management of surface access to airports? In his strategy, does he therefore have plans to limit surface access by private cars—belonging not only to passengers but to staff—and to direct investment into attractive and affordable public transport links to our airports? Specifically, does he plan to switch investment from the proposed widening of the M25 to rejuvenating the much-desired crossrail project?

Mr. Prescott: Those are serious questions in any transport policy review and the connection between aviation, rail and road—the aspects of any integrated policy—must be considered. I hope soon to make a statement on what we mean by an integrated transport policy. [Laughter.] Yes, those have often been used as buzzwords, often by Conservative Members, but we intend to define their meaning. If any satisfaction can be found in controlling the environmental problems that have resulted from the Conservatives' privatisation of the public transport system, it is absolutely essential that we do so. The M25 widening and a spur to terminal 5 are important issues and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be commenting on the review of the roads programme. We wish, however, to connect and improve public transport to our airports as much as we want to improve access by motor vehicles.

Sir George Young: I welcome the members of the new transport team to their first Transport Questions and congratulate Ministers on their appointments. On air transport, will the Deputy Prime Minister now resolve the total confusion that arose during the general election campaign over the Labour party's policy on national air traffic control? Does he plan to privatise it or not?

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's kind comments about me and the team. The confusion arose from the previous Government's original decision that no statement was to be made about air traffic control until the House had been informed about any public interest and safety. As the right hon. Gentleman wholly failed to make such a statement, we are making that assessment. A decision will be made at the appropriate time.

Road Investment

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on current levels of investment in the trunk road and motorway systems. [475]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): Provision for investment in improvement and maintenance of the trunk roads network in England for 1997–98 is some £1,491 million net. We are, however, committed to carrying out a strategic review of the trunk roads programme.

Mrs. Winterton: In view of the importance of road infrastructure investment, especially to a strong and growing economy inherited from the previous Government, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that spending pledges made before 1 May will be honoured? Will he reassure my constituents in Cheshire and people elsewhere that the widening of the M6 will go ahead as planned on time?

Dr. Strang: I am a little surprised at the hon. Lady's remarks. She was a supporter of a Government who massively cut the roads programme, not on the basis of an objective analysis of the relative merits of various schemes but on the basis of a need simply to cut public expenditure. I assure her that we shall adopt a much more balanced approach to those matters. We shall take into account a range of factors and we shall certainly stand by all the pledges that we gave during the general election campaign.

Mr. Kidney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said, many people are opposed to the widening of the M6, not only on environmental grounds but on strategic ones relating to the road network, especially around the north of Birmingham? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, while the outcome of the discussions is awaited, the money spent on widening the M6 could be more usefully spent on modernising the west coast main line, which is next to the M6?

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Those are important decisions and I can assure him that we shall be taking into account accessibility, safety, economy and, as he said, perhaps above all, the environmental impact.

Mr. Key: I must acknowledge in all fairness that these are early days, but will the Minister give us some flavour of his own thinking on the possibility of urban and inter-urban motorway and trunk road pricing as a way of securing investment?

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will accept that, in the first instance, we have to carry out a fundamental review of the roads programme. Of course, when it comes to spending on roads, and especially public transport as we are determined to have an integrated transport policy, we shall have to examine a range of issues.

M25

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to review the proposed widening of the M25. [476]

Mr. Prescott: The widening of the M25 between junctions 8 and 10, which is under construction, will continue. We intend to announce shortly our proposals for reviewing the trunk roads programme, including other M25 schemes.

Mr. Mackinlay: I greatly welcome the review, but will my right hon. Friend give a specific commitment that, should the grotesque proposed widening of the M25 to 10 lanes between junctions 12 and 14 and to 12 lanes between junctions 14 and 15 proceed, at his instruction, it will be, in contrast to what happened before, the subject of a planning inquiry which was denied the objectors by the previous Government? It is crucial that there should be scrutiny and accountability. In the meantime, will the grotesque widening proposals be the subject of the review to which my right hon. Friend just referred?

Mr. Prescott: The issue is the review into those major trunkways. We shall make an announcement about that review. When we have made those decisions, other matters relating to whether planning inquiries go ahead will depend on the judgment of the review.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider the effect of Heathrow-bound traffic on the density of traffic in the M25 area, particularly to the west of London? Will he bear in mind both the possibility of a fifth terminal bringing yet more traffic on to the M25 if it is approved and the need for improved rail access, even after the completion of the high-speed link to Paddington, westwards to Langley and the west country and south-eastwards to Waterloo and beyond?

Mr. Prescott: With his specialised knowledge of the aviation industry, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an important point about connections to airports. The widening of the M25 near the spur to the Heathrow terminal is an important issue, although it is not directly connected to the inquiry. I shall have to consider the proposals that come out of the terminal 5 inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will consider the review of the widening of the M25. The important point is to ask whether we can integrate better and use other forms of public connections to railways, and not only for Heathrow. We shall put our minds to those issues, which are essential for anyone who believes in an integrated transport policy.

Rail Electrification

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to assist electrification of the main railway line from Paddington to south Wales and the west. [477]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): The United Kingdom has secured £0.65 million of European Union funding for a study of potential


improvements to the Great Western line. The study is being carried out by Railtrack and is already under way. The Government are committed to the railway network being run in the public interest with higher levels of investment and we are considering how best to achieve that.

Mr. Morgan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new job. Will she confirm that the service between London Paddington and Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea is the last major inter-city line in western Europe that uses diesel, not electricity? The GWR company can improve its livery, but it cannot improve delivery under the current technology. Does she agree that, until it goes electric, the initials GWR will stand, not, as they did in the old days, for God's wonderful railway, but for a godawful woeful railway?

Ms Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. I reiterate our central commitment to ensuring that the vast amounts of public money that are still going to our railways should produce the best quality public services. My understanding is that, as part of a 10-year plan, Great Western Trains will invest up to £30 million to deliver a more flexible rolling stock fleet. It is part of our commitment to creating a genuine public service on our railways that all franchisees will be closely monitored to ensure that they meet the commitments that they have given.

Sir George Young: Will the Minister explain how the higher levels of investment to which she has just committed herself will be assisted by a windfall tax on Railtrack?

Ms Jackson: I find it astonishing that the right hon. Gentleman, who, as Secretary of State for Transport, oversaw the profligate waste of taxpayers' money on rail privatisation, including £450 million for consultancy fees alone, should make such a point. I repeat that the Government are committed to the vast amounts of public money that are still going into our railway system being used to produce the highest quality services.

Transport Policies

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to encourage environmentally sustainable transport policies. [478]

Mr. Prescott: Protection and enhancement of the environment will be at the heart of our approach to government. We shall develop an integrated transport policy designed to provide genuine choice to meet people's future needs in line with our overall goal of environmentally sustainable economic and social development.

Mr. Yeo: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways to promote sustainability is through greater use of market instruments?

Mr. Prescott: People in any of our major cities around the country, which have been subjected to the privatisation of the bus services, leading to the choking of

much of our city space, will not agree with that policy. Integration of our transport system means a better use of public and private transportation and will be better for the environment. When we make our statement on integration, the hon. Gentleman will be able to make a judgment on it.

Mrs. Brinton: What plans does my right hon. Friend have to encourage alternative forms of transport to work other than the car, especially in view of the fact that the previous Administration ran down public transport, particularly buses, in such a shameful fashion?

Mr. Prescott: The House will be glad to see my hon. Friend in her place today in view of the unfortunate accident she suffered on the London underground. Both sides of the House will agree that we must do as much as we can to improve the safety of transport; that will be at the heart of our approach. Improving safety is one important aspect on which we shall spend some time.
The major point that concerns us is that, although we have fewer cars per head than most other countries, we use them more. That is a reflection of our poor public transport system, which we intend to improve.

M4

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish new plans for the proposed M4-A34 interchange at Chieveley. [479]

Dr. Strang: In view of the strategic review of the roads programme, it is too early to say what our plans for this interchange will be.

Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister accept that although this interchange programme is not needed for the Newbury bypass, it will have a significant effect in my area in that there is an increase in rat running down the B4000 through Stockcross and down the A4 through Thatcham to get to the interchanges on either side of interchange 13? Therefore, the sooner that we go ahead with this programme, the better.

Dr. Strang: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says; I know of the interest he has taken in the matter. As he knows, a national scheme was published for the improvement of the interchange, but, because it is envisaged that it will be a long time before the scheme is started—as the hon. Gentleman would expect, the interchange will be part of the review—there will be an impact on the timing of any interim improvement scheme for the roundabout.

Railways (East Sussex)

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he plans to take to encourage greater use of railways in East Sussex; and if he will make a statement. [480]

Ms Glenda Jackson: Our objective for the whole of the passenger network is to see more people travelling by rail. We want higher levels of investment, proper


enforcement of train operators' service commitments and all the benefits of having a national railway network. We are considering what action is necessary to achieve those things.

Mr. Baker: Does the Minister recognise that, under the previous Government, money spent on roads was called investment whereas money spent on rail was called subsidy? There is a need to redress that balance. Is she aware that, in my constituency of Lewes, there is considerable potential for increased rail traffic, especially along the corridor from Lewes to Polegate, where the previous Government identified a multi-million-pound dual carriageway scheme, but had no plans for the railway? Will she work with me to secure investment in the local railway system and cheaper fares for the public? In view of the great importance of transport issues for my constituents, will she or the Secretary of State agree to an early meeting with me to discuss the issues in more detail?

Ms Jackson: To answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, yes, I should be delighted to have a meeting with him. I well remember my visit to his constituency before the general election. I am aware that there is great popular feeling in his constituency about the extension of what people regard as existing infrastructure which could be patched in to the main line. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Channel Tunnel Rail Links

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to ensure that trains coming from the channel tunnel will be able to (a) continue north of London and (b) link with modernised services to (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales and (iii) the north of England. [481]

Ms Glenda Jackson: I understand that London and Continental Railways, owners of Eurostar UK Ltd., plans to start regional channel tunnel services to and from Paris this year.

Mr. Connarty: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new starring role. Does she share my concern that, on the information I have, there will be no link between Manchester and Glasgow on the west coast line for the Eurostar service? Can she give the people and businesses of Scotland, Wales and northern England some assurance that the franchise company now running the former British Rail services will provide a rail track north of London that will be capable of bearing the speeds that are expected from the Eurotunnel-London rail link?

Ms Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his greeting, albeit that I believe that I have a supporting as opposed to a starring role. We are extremely pleased that LCR lodged an application in January for a Transport and Works Act 1992 order. The application is to deal with the proposed new station at Stratford and its commitment to ensuring that Eurostar trains can, indeed, service our regions. That is inherent in the application for the order, which also carries with it a commitment to build a spur from the west coast main line to the channel tunnel rail link.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Lady recognise that it is not only Scotland, Wales and the north, where the Labour

strongholds are, that have an interest in Eurostar services, but the south-west of England, especially my constituency of Bournemouth?

Ms Jackson: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that this Government came to power committed to govern for most of the people, regardless of where they live.

Dr. Marek: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment. Does she agree that it is necessary for people to be able to buy tickets easily for Eurostar trains that go north of London? Through ticketing should be available and it should be possible for the public to use the trains that go through the tunnel to travel between different parts of the United Kingdom, instead of being able to get on them only at Crewe, Manchester or Birmingham. We need a much more easily used railway system than we have at present for such services to be a success.

Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a point that the whole Government strongly endorse. We are committed to ensuring that we have linkages that facilitate the ease of passengers, on trains and throughout a multi-modal system. We shall work with everyone concerned to produce that situation soon. One philosophical difference between this Government and the Tories is that we believe that public transport modes should co-operate, not compete, with each other for the benefit of the travelling public.

Sir Robert Smith: In the light of that philosophy, will the Minister consider seriously the electrification of the east coast main line to Aberdeen, which is another intercity link that is connected only by diesel to Europe? Is she aware that electrification would greatly increase the chance of piggyback freight and other forms of freight using the rail link?

Ms Jackson: I repeat that the Government are committed to seeing greater levels of investment in our railway network. My understanding is that Railtrack Freight is already conducting an inquiry into the possibilities of piggyback. When it finishes that survey, it will be presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and our auditors will look at it.

M66

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the M66 from Denton to Middleton to open. [483]

Dr. Strang: As I said earlier, we are committed to a strategic review of the trunk road programme. A key early decision will be on how to handle those schemes at or near construction, of which the M66 scheme is a prime example.

Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there was great disappointment in Tameside at the delay in letting the final contract for the scheme? The traffic congestion caused by the failure to complete it has caused great anxiety to my constituents. Will he give an assurance that it will be completed at an early date?

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is right and I am well aware of the importance, to Manchester and surrounding


areas, of the scheme, which would effectively complete an outer-city bypass for Manchester. He has taken a great interest in the scheme and I assure him that we shall soon announce those schemes on which we shall have to take decisions in advance of the review.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: How will the Minister justify continuing to answer for the Government on English roads as a Scottish Member of Parliament, when he supports proposals that would deny any say to Welsh and English Members on roads in Scotland? Does he think that that is a sustainable proposition?

Dr. Strang: This is the United Kingdom Parliament, which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I am privileged to serve in it.

Speed Limits

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to review existing maximum speed limits. [484]

Dr. Strang: Speed contributes to a third of all road accidents. I am concerned to reduce its impact and I shall consider a range of measures to manage speed, including speed limits.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. Is he aware of the increasing numbers of people,

especially the elderly, who are effectively trapped in their own homes, as they are unable to cross nearby roads because of the speed and intensity of local traffic? Will he consider the proposal made by one of his predecessors, as an Opposition spokesman, to reduce speed limits outside all schools to 20 mph, which would immediately improve the safety of many children and young people?

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises a number of very important points. I should point out to him—this covers part of what he said—that the failure to observe the 30 mph speed limit in our urban areas is of particular concern. That speed limit is frequently ignored and often a contributor to accidents.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Given that the speed limit on motorways is only 70 mph but on winding roads in Dorset, for instance, it is 60 mph, should we not be considering raising the maximum speed limit on motorways and other such roads and bringing some sense to what seems a nonsensical set of speed limits?

Dr. Strang: I cannot see a case for raising speed limits. Something like a third of all accidents are caused by excessive speed. Road accident statistics for 1996 have not yet been published, but in 1995, 1,200 people were killed in accidents associated with speeding.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill:—

Committee

1.—(1) Proceedings in Committee shall be completed at the sittings this day and tomorrow.

(2) At the sitting this day, proceedings on any amendments to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would amend that Clause at any place before the word 'Scotland' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Seven o'clock.

(3) At the sitting this day, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would leave out the word 'Scotland' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in its place,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Eight o'clock.

(4) At the sitting tomorrow, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would leave out the words 'and tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament' at lines 6 and 7 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in their place,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Four o'clock.

(5) At the sitting tomorrow, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would leave out only the words 'tax-varying powers' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in their place,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Six o'clock.

(6) At the sitting tomorrow, the remaining proceedings on Clause 1 and proceedings on any amendments to Clause 2—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would amend the Bill at any place before the word 'propositions' at line 7 of page 2 of the Bill,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at a quarter past Six o'clock.

(7) At the sitting tomorrow, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 2—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would leave out the word 'propositions' at line 7 of page 2 of the Bill,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Eight o'clock.

(8) At the sitting tomorrow, the remaining proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Eight o'clock.

(9) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Report and Third Reading

2. The proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting tomorrow and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Conclusion of proceedings

3.—(l) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive Clauses and Schedules, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those Clauses and Schedules.

(3) If at the sitting tomorrow

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, and
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time,

the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings at that sitting in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to remaining proceedings that day on the Bill then being considered.

Order of proceedings

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.

Dilatory motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

6. The following business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour—

(a) proceedings under paragraph 3(1) or (2);
(b) proceedings to which paragraph 3(3) applies;
(c) proceedings under paragraph 8(1).

Business Committee

7. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Supplemental orders

8.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) If at the sitting this day or tomorrow the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1 or 2, no notice


shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Recommittal

9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise). and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today's Question Time has confirmed our worst fears that the decision to merge the Departments of the Environment and of Transport has led to a significant reduction in Back Benchers' opportunities to question Ministers on matters of crucial importance to our constituents. In a rural constituency such as mine, environment and transport issues matter. My constituents are more concerned with the funding of local authority and rural schools than they are, with the best will in the world, with international development. As usual, the decision was taken without consulting the House. Ministers took the decision no doubt to solve a diplomatic problem concerning the Deputy Prime Minister. May I urge you, Madam Speaker, to use the influence that you have in this area to reverse the decision?

Madam Speaker: I have no authority over the allocation of time for departmental matters. The President of the Council will in due course be at the Dispatch Box, when the hon. Gentleman might like to put a question to her.

Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall points of order being raised about reading during Question Time. I believe that you indicated that it was acceptable if someone referred to notes. I noticed today that, once again, when an hon. Member referred to notes, a few hon. Members called out, "Reading." Will you protect Back Benchers and allow them to refer to notes during Question Time if they feel it necessary?

Madam Speaker: I have already given a ruling that it is of course occasionally possible to glance at notes. I am particularly tolerant with new hon. Members and I hope that other long-standing hon. Members will be a little tolerant about such matters, too.

Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will be able to help the House. My point concerns the change in time allowed for Question Time. About 18 months ago, an hour was allocated to Environment questions and the then Opposition asked whether that could be changed to 40 minutes, because it would help them. We agreed, on the basis that it is normally felt that Question Time should be particularly affected by the needs of the Opposition. That has been historically so.
No such discussions have taken place recently, and that is a pity. Could you find some way of trying to ensure that once again hon. Members on both sides of the House

feel that the allocation of time for questions is not a matter of a diktat? I should have liked to retain an hour for Environment questions, but because the then Opposition wanted a change, we accepted it. Could you use your good offices in this area?

Madam Speaker: I dislike repeating myself. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I am not consulted about a change in time. I take his point and repeat that the President of the Council will be answering such questions soon. I appeal to him to use his good offices, too, through the usual channels. I shall do what I can myself.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of clarification, Madam Speaker. It has been suggested that today's allocation of time motion will prevent individual votes on any amendments other than the first amendment in any group. Is that the case?

Madam Speaker: What is usual on a guillotine is that it depends on the progress made and on the Chairman of Ways and Means or whichever Deputy Speaker is in the Chair. It depends on progress, and the more points of order we have, the less progress we shall make.

Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. An extremely important new clause has been tabled, dealing with the threshold for majorities that would be taken into account in deciding whether a referendum was to be effective. A similar amendment was ultimately defeated under the previous Labour Government and led to that Government's fall. Do you accept that it is outrageous that under the present arrangements for the allocation of time, that new clause will effectively fall and there will be no vote on those important matters?

Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I repeat that the more points of order we have, the less time we shall have for debating those matters.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last night, when a statement was made about the business of the House for today, I asked whether you had any role in safeguarding the position of Back Benchers. Clearly, my question was addressed through you to the Leader of the House; I now address it directly to you. Bearing in mind the fact that a unique situation on a constitutional Bill has resulted from the Government's decision, do you have any role in safeguarding the ability of Back Benchers to speak on a Bill which, although it is only a referendum Bill, clearly has vital implications for subsequent legislation?

Madam Speaker: I have always attempted to safeguard the interests of Back Benchers. Guillotines are carried out under our Standing Orders, and I repeat that the longer hon. Members raise points of order and do not debate the issues on the Floor of the House, the worse the position is for them. I hope that we can now get on with the guillotine motion and move on to amendments. If we do not take up all the three hours on the guillotine, we can move on to the amendments.

Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to try your patience,


but my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked you earlier about the ability of the House to put to the vote individual amendments within the selected groups, and it is my understanding, from a reading of the motion before us, that only the first amendment in any group can be voted on, unless proposed by a Minister of the Crown. That is clearly unacceptable: it means that four of my amendments will not only be inadequately debated, but cannot be voted on.

Madam Speaker: That normally happens when we discuss legislation that is under guillotine. That has happened over many years. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House when we have dealt with legislation under guillotine. It is a normal practice and how it works out depends on who is in the Chair at the time and on whether hon. Members wish to use up time by dividing the House.

Mr. Dewar: I thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am very conscious of the fact that the clock ticks and that someone moving a motion of this kind should do so, I hope, with conviction and with persuasion, but certainly quickly. The quickly part is not necessarily built into my natural mode, but I intend to be up and down reasonably sharply on this occasion.
I am also very conscious of the fact that guillotine motions are never popular. This is the first one that I have ever had to move, although I have been on the receiving end on many occasions, as Conservative Members will know.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No, I think that we should make a little progress.
I listened with particular care to the exchanges when the business statement was made last night. I am not totally persuaded that precedent is the only way in which to proceed. If we relied entirely on precedent, we would live in a very ossified society, because we could never do anything that had not been done before, and I am not sure that that would be a recipe for a live and lively democracy. Therefore, I am not entirely persuaded that we should rely on precedent in the matter.
However, I am entitled to draw the attention of the House to the fact that our action is not unprecedented, and that this is not a case of pushing something through in a way never thought, dreamt of or dared before, nor of the bulldozing of Parliament by a bullying Executive. What we are doing does not fall into any of those categories. It seems to me that the whiff of constitutional outrage that was allowed to drift round the Chamber yesterday can quickly be dispersed when one begins to look at the facts.
Opposition Members, including those who have been involved in Conservative Administrations, will know that they have often used guillotine motions as a way of managing the business of the House. I make no complaint about that; no doubt on occasion the present Government will feel it necessary to do the same. That is part of our constitutional machinery.
As I understand it, the particular complaint here is that a guillotine to govern a Committee stage has never been tabled before the start of that Committee stage.

Mr. Michael Howard: Not on constitional matters.

Mr. Dewar: Now we are beginning to change the script. The former Home Secretary may have saved me some time, because I was about to read out an enormous list of occasions when, under the Conservative Government, a timetable motion to guarantee progress during Committee stage was tabled before that Committee stage started.
I am thinking, for example, of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill, the Further and Higher Education Bill—[Interruption.] Let me draw attention—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a little while, but the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill are burnt into my memory. I happened to be the Opposition spokesman on both—they were both important Bills that shifted a substantial financial burden on to industry. With both, a timetable not only governed the Committee stage, but took them through all their stages from Second Reading to Third Reading in one day. On successive days, both went through.
I do not know the reason for that, but it puts into perspective some of the remarks made during our exchanges last night that on occasion, although not universally, struck me as having a touch of humbug—

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Fallon: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I shall make one final point before I take a couple of points of information. In order to avoid the catalogue of examples, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who will open for the Opposition, said very precisely, "Not on a constitutional Bill." He said that there was no precedent on a constitutional Bill.
We can argue about the status of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, but there can be no doubt that in 1978 the House, rightly or wrongly, passed two enormously important constitutional Acts—the Scotland Act 1978 and the Wales Act 1978—most of the proceedings on which took place under timetable motions regulating the Committee stage. Those motions were debated and agreed before the Committee stages started.
We cannot allow the myth to be perpetrated that what we are doing has never been done before, and that we are plunging into some sort of new jungle territory where democracy will die among the snakes. Things are not like that at all, and hon. Members should recognise the fact.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is smiling.

Mr. Cash: In an attempt to penetrate the Scotch mist, may I invite the right hon. Gentleman to answer the


question that I asked the Leader of the House yesterday, which she persistently refused to answer? Does he accept that the Bill is what is known in "Erskine May" and in our precedents as a first-class constitutional Bill, because it affects the integrity of the United Kingdom Parliament in its sovereign functions? If so, does he therefore accept that it is a Bill that should be treated in a proper manner, and not, as the Government are treating it, in the manner of a Stalinist dictatorship, because they are determined to have their own way at all costs? Is it not a disgrace that the Bill should be the subject of a guillotine before we have even had a chance to examine its merits?

Mr. Dewar: For one hopeful happy moment, I thought that I was about to be compared with the late J. Stalin. As a former Chief Whip, I might have thought that a compliment.
May I say to the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question.] I will answer the question, which takes me nicely on from the precedent argument to the status of the Bill. We could dance on the head of a pin about whether this is a constitutional Bill, but one thing cannot be denied: it is not a Bill that seeks to alter the constitution. That is the key point.
In a particularly pained contribution last night, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose sincerity about these matters I have genuinely admired for many years, talked about this Bill in terms that made it clear that he was classing it with the devolution Bill that may follow if the referendums approve the Government's proposals. If we were talking about that Bill, we should be in a very different situation, but this is a paving measure which deals with organising the ballot and putting in place the machinery for counting votes. It is a simple Bill that follows almost exactly the precedents of the 1975 European referendum and the 1978–79 devolution referendums. Other than paving the way for an expression of opinion by the people of Scotland and Wales, it does not in any way alter this country's constitution. The comparison with the devolution Bill itself is false and mistaken.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Edward Garnier: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I cannot resist giving way.

Mr. Jenkin: Which of us is the more resistible?

Mr. Dewar: I give way to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

Mr. Jenkin: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is only a minor paving measure, why did he bother to have the Committee stage on the Floor at all? Will he undertake that the main measures will be taken on the Floor with a timetable agreed with Her Majesty's Opposition, to ensure that the whole Bill gets proper scrutiny?

Mr. Dewar: We are damned if we do, damned if we do not with the hon. Gentleman. He is a most contrary man, although often entertaining. We decided to take the matter on the Floor. We thought that it would please

Conservative Members and ensure that we made proper progress to allowing the Bill to move on to another place. I hope that we can advance to the sort of test of consent that I thought that the Opposition approved of, and which they certainly called for often enough in the pre-general election period. We should not be open to criticism because we are allowing—(Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is turning modest. I do not think it a criticism that we are taking the Bill on the Floor, where he, too, can take part without any inhibitions. I am sure that he will.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the Jopling Committee, on which there was a substantial Conservative majority, considered not only the precedents, but how the House could more expeditiously deal with such business? Its report stated:
The evidence given to us on timetabling of bills was almost without exception in favour of its more general use.
More importantly, it stated:
The arguments in favour of the proper scrutiny of all parts of a bill are compelling; and timetables applied from an early stage after second reading are probably the best way".
I note that the former Conservative Leader of the House strongly favoured that recommendation.

Mr. Dewar: I am well aware of the Jopling report and that we have moved some way to meeting some of its recommendations. It suggested that the timetabling of all Committee stages would be a sensible approach to the business of the House, which would allow good order and better government, and which would let people know exactly where they were and when matters of interest were likely to arise. That is a matter for further consideration. It would not be fair for me to pray it in aid, except spiritually, on this occasion. I am sure that the matter will be discussed by the Select Committee on parliamentary procedure, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hopes to have operating shortly. The recommendation points the way forward and is interesting in the context of this argument.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I must move on. I promised to be quick, but I have taken many interventions.
My first point was simple. This is a paving Bill for the purpose that I described. The second is that in discussing our way forward, we relied on the realities and the common sense of the situation. We have a Bill, which no doubt hon. Members who have the staying power to have stayed for so long will have looked at carefully. They will have seen that it is a modest measure dealing with the mechanics of the referendum. It runs to six clauses and two schedules. It has attracted 250 amendments plus 25 new clauses and 12 new schedules. I congratulate the Opposition. They are obviously in a rather machismo stage of their political development on the Opposition Benches. In all fairness to them, they have got organised. It is clear that there was an agreement that they would attempt to dig in and obstruct this measure.
I make no complaint about that. I have been involved in that sort of exercise in my time. I do not live in the unreal world of imagining that that is beyond


the competence or wit of even this Opposition. I am sure that it is not, and we shall probably see plenty of evidence of their ability to engage in such an exercise in future.
I do complain, however, that the Opposition should try to pretend that it is terrible when the Government, recognising what is happening, take steps to deal with what is afoot and to preserve proper progress for their business. That seems to be common sense and something that should cause no surprise to anyone who is being frank about his expectations on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman has made much of the fact that the proposed legislation and the devolution legislation to follow it will follow closely the precedent established in 1977 and 1978. Is he able to confirm that the motion before us allows no time for debating the thresholds for the necessary majority, which ended up as such an important part of the future of the earlier legislation to which I have referred?

Mr. Dewar: I suspect that what we manage to debate will depend entirely on how much time we spend on these matters. The sooner we get on with the real debates, the better I shall be pleased.
We were faced with an organised move to block and obstruct. We decided that it was better to go for a timetable motion. We thought that there was an additional advantage in taking that course, in that rather than having a chaotic passage of arms over an indefinite period, we would try to arrange the motion in a way that at least allowed for a number of the important issues related specifically to the referendum to be properly ventilated. That is what we have tried to do.
I do not think that anyone will be over-anxious to discover that a number of the more esoteric amendments have fallen by the wayside. We have tried to ensure that the matters that are relevant to the referendum are debated and that there is not simply a reprise of what will be extensive debate if and when we reach the devolution Bill. That is exactly what we have tried to do, and it is what a responsible Opposition would do.
It is significant—I do not want to put too much of a burden on the Opposition's shoulders—that often when there is talk about bulldozing democracy and oppressing minorities, the smaller parties understandably find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. It is significant also that at least in broad terms, the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and so on have indicated—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I say to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that I have a broad embrace and take in all the parties. I am happy that we have the broad support of the smaller parties on this matter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). After all, he has returned to the House.

Mr. Fallon: Will the Minister confirm that no more than half of the amendments tabled have been selected?

Is he not now enunciating a rather dangerous doctrine that it is the job of the Leader of the House or himself, rather than that of the Chairman of Ways and Means, to decide which amendments should be accepted and included in debate, or squeezed out by the terms of a timetable motion?

Mr. Dewar: I suppose that that is an argument, but one that I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would want to endorse, for banning any form of timetable motion. The selection of amendments is not a matter for me and certainly not a matter for me to comment on. I should be in hot water very quickly if I presumed so to comment and I have no intention of running that self-evident risk.
I accept, of course, that a framework restricts. If we want to avoid that, we should avoid the exercise that has clearly been mounted against this small, technical Bill. It is an exercise in obstruction.

Sir Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Dewar: Let me finish, because I promised to be brief. I have argued that there are precedents in plenty. The Bill would not alter the constitution: it is not a constitutional measure, which is how it has been represented. I point to the overwhelming evidence that an organised attempt has, perfectly legitimately, been made—and equally legitimately met—to obstruct the Bill as distinct from properly debating it.
I should remind the House, even if I do not receive a sympathetic hearing, that our manifesto pledge is important to us. When challenged by Michael Forsyth and by opponents of constitutional change in Scotland who said that we should not shelter behind a general election result, given the multiplicity of reasons for the way in which people vote, we said that we would deal with the matter head on and would run the risk of putting it to the people. We are confident of the outcome, but we may be wrong, so let the people decide. We made it clear that that test of opinion would be an advisory note to Parliament when it came to consider the main questions, and we want to hold to that.
I am sorry to tell the House that I came to the conclusion, in conjunction with my colleagues, that if we did not move down this road, the timetable would slip and we would not have the test of public opinion that I think is in everyone's interest and in the interests of direct democracy. On that basis and for that combination of reasons, I do not believe that the motion is unreasonable. It is in the interests of direct democracy and good government.

Mr. Michael Howard: The first duty of the House is to debate legislation. It is by discharging that duty that we hold Government to account and serve our constituents. A delicate system of checks and balances has grown up in Parliament over centuries. [Interruption.] The need for strong government is balanced against the importance of effective opposition; the right of the majority against that of minorities; the call of party discipline against the conscience of individual Members.
Those arrangements rest, to a large extent, on convention, compromise and fair play. Observers from abroad, where government depends on codified


constitutional arrangements, are often astounded by the spirit of fair-mindedness that permeates our parliamentary procedure. [Interruption.] In stifling discussion on the Bill—

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if hon. Members on the Government Bench below the Gangway would pay attention to what is being said.

Mr. Howard: In stifling discussion on the Bill, the Government display their contempt for decency, for convention and for Parliament itself. The guillotine motion is the most drastic way of silencing debate known to Parliament. On allocation of time orders, "Erskine May" says:
They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate.
There can be few clearer examples of the guillotine being abused than the motion now before the House.
The Bill is of major constitutional significance, and the Committee stage has not even begun. To quote "Erskine May" again:
An allocation of time order is not usually moved … until the rate of progress in committee has provided an argument for its necessity.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that what staggers Labour Members is that hardly any Conservative Front-Bench Members spoke on Second Reading? The Opposition were short of Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members: there was a sea of green on the Conservative Benches. However, when the time came to table amendments, there was an organised filibuster. A vast number of amendments have been tabled, some of which are clearly frivolous. The Conservative party's inability to find Back-Bench Members or Front-Bench spokesmen—I have never experienced a debate on a major Bill for which the Opposition have not put up a Front-Bench spokesman—makes it difficult for us to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument seriously.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. Of course we dealt with Second Reading from the Front Bench. I know of no convention in the House that suggests that those who do not take part in a Second Reading debate are in some way barred from taking part in debates in Committee; that has never been the way in which we have proceeded.
The Government Front Bench and, indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), claim that the Bill would be delayed, but there is no evidence whatever of such delay. Indeed, by killing discussion before the Committee stage has even started, the Government have not allowed the question whether there would have been a delay to be tested. The Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that there was one precedent for constitutional Bills to be subject to allocations of time: the guillotine motions on the Scotland and Wales Bills in 1977. We should remember, however, that when the then Leader of the House, Mr. Michael Foot, proposed the guillotine motion for the Scotland Bill, in a manner that could be

described only as apologetic in the extreme—a far cry from the manner in which the Secretary of State introduced the motion this afternoon—he used the occasion to remind the House that there had already been 30 days of debate on the legislation. The House should compare that with the arrogant and dismissive way in which the Government have tabled this motion.

Mr. Garnier: In the 1976, 1977 and 1978 Sessions, when the House was dealing with the Wales and Scotland Bills, not only was there plenty of debate beforehand, but the timetable motions allowed for 20, 17 and 11 further days of debate respectively on those Bills.

Mr. Howard: My hon. and learned Friend is right.
We make such points only because that was the precedent relied on by the Secretary of State. It is no use Labour Members saying that there were differences. That is the precedent on which the right hon. Gentleman relies—the only precedent for the guillotining of a Bill of constitutional significance before the Committee stage.
After just a month in office, the Government have already demonstrated their contempt for Parliament. Disregard for the House runs like a thread through their actions. We have seen the cutting of Prime Minister's questions to one session a week, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's failure to announce his changes to the Bank of England in the House. As for the Government's legislative programme, the proposals in the Queen's Speech amount to a massive transfer of powers from the House to bankers, judges, devolved assemblies and Brussels bureaucrats. Never has there been such a comprehensive assault on the sovereignty of the House—and, more important, on the sovereignty of those who send us to this place.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of the concern of those who send us here. Has he received any representations from his constituents in Folkestone and Hythe about the Bill, and has he consulted Conservatives in Scotland and Wales? Of course, he could not do so in the House, but has he done so anywhere else?

Mr. Howard: Certainly I have consulted Conservatives in both Scotland and Wales about the legislation. As for my constituents in Folkestone and Hythe, they know how much importance I attach to the legislation—as they do—because it featured prominently in my election campaign.
By asking the people of Wales and Scotland to vote before seeing the devolution legislation, the Government are in any case resorting to an anti-parliamentary device. The pre-legislative plebiscite, which is wholly alien to our British traditions, is intended to curtail parliamentary debate and to silence parliamentary criticism. We now learn, however, that we are to be denied a full debate even on the mechanism by which the referendums are to be organised. The Government's distrust of Parliament extends to both the end and the means.
The Prime Minister is not the first politician to speak warmly of constitutional change, while distrusting parliamentary accountability. That path was first trodden by that great reforming socialist Robespierre, who, like the Prime Minister, had a substantial fondness for the guillotine.
As a result of the guillotine motion, we are to be denied a debate on the amendments relating to the publication and form of the ballot papers, on the procedures for the conduct of the referendums, on the financing and organisation of the referendums, and even on the vital question of the necessary majorities and whether there should be thresholds. Those questions cannot be debated at all under the motion. Apparently, they are regarded by the Secretary of State for Scotland as being in the category of esoteric amendments. That was how he described the amendments for which the motion makes no provision for debate, but they are at the heart of the Bill, which we shall debate in such curtailed form.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Could the shadow Home Secretary point to a Front-Bench Tory amendment on the amendment paper that deals with the issue of thresholds?

Mr. Howard: It has long been the custom and practice of the House for Front-Bench spokesmen to speak on Back-Bench amendments. I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I should have thought that he would be the first to rise to protest against any invasion of the liberties of Back Benchers. It is of great importance that Back-Bench amendments cannot be debated under the motion.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard: Not at the moment.
Of all the questions that I have identified, the last is perhaps the most scandalous effect of the motion.
When it was put to me this morning on the "Today" programme, on which I preceded the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the guillotine motion would allow time for debate on questions such as the voting threshold and similar issues, I said that I simply did not know, because the timetable motion had not yet been published. Mr. James Naughtie was incredulous. "Surely," he said, "the motion might limit the time for debate, but it would not deny the possibility of debate altogether." How wrong he was. Fundamental questions at the heart of the Bill, at the heart of what ought to be the debate on the measure, cannot be discussed at all under the terms of the motion.
Much has been made of the importance of establishing
the settled will of the Scottish people",
to use the late John Smith's famous phrase. Is a bare majority on a low turnout to be described as
the settled will of the Scottish people"?
On that, the Government are not prepared to allow debate at all.

Mr. Dewar: I should have rather more sympathy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument if he suggested that the referendum would be binding on Parliament rather than advisory. As he does not seem to be saying that, his argument is greatly undermined.

Mr. Howard: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our argument is that the referendum should take place after

the legislation, that it should take full account of it and be based on a specific question relating to it. The choice that the right hon. Gentleman puts to me is not one that I acknowledge at all. We think that it is fundamentally wrong for the referendum to take place before the legislation.
The question remains: what are the Government frightened of? Why, with a majority of 179, are they determined to suppress any criticism? Could they be worried that, during a debate, the absurdity of expecting people to vote without seeing the legislation would be exposed? Might there have been some concern about the threat that the proposals pose to the long-term unity of our country? I should like to use another quotation:
The timetable motion is an abuse of power. No one can deny the wish of a Government to secure progress for their business, but that must be balanced against the need for adequate debate and discussion of a measure … Guillotines can be justified only where an Opposition have filibustered a Bill, where they have refused all reasonable suggestions to agree a timetable, or where there is no possibility of the Government getting their business through at reasonable speed without a guillotine."—[Official Report, 1 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 757.]
Those are not my words. They are the words of the present Home Secretary.
The Bill touches on the affairs of every person in the United Kingdom. If implemented, it and the devolution legislation to which it is the precursor will bring about a tectonic change in how this island is governed. It contains all the elements necessary for an acrimonious breakdown among the nations of the United Kingdom, yet the Government are determined to choke off discussion. If the referendums were carried, that would be their excuse to still further debate in the House, and any attempt to raise those matters now is to be cut off by the guillotine.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend concede that, in response to a Liberal Democrat intervention, the Secretary of State for Scotland used the Jopling proposals to justify what he has done? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept from me, a perennial Back Bencher, that the Government of the day always want to get their business through as easily and as quickly as possible, that the House should pay more attention to the genuine interests of Back Benchers and that the Jopling proposals were in fact a weapon of the Government and disadvantageous to Back Benchers' interests?

Mr. Howard: There is much force in the point made by my hon. Friend, and of course it is not simply a question of protecting the role of Back Benchers, important though that is. At the heart of the question that we are debating is the responsibility of Parliament and the fact that we are sent here by our constituents to expose legislation to proper scrutiny. It is that opportunity which we are being denied by the motion.
When they were in opposition, Labour Members spoke of the need for more open government. The British constitution, they complained, concentrated power in the hands of the Executive. Ministers, they said, had been made arrogant by their tenure of office. What then do they suppose the motion constitutes? Its every provision bears witness to a contemptuous, imperious attitude to Parliament, and this is a Government at the beginning of their term, dewy-eyed with reformist fervour.
This shabby measure reflects very badly on the Government and it reflects worst of all on the Leader of the House. She has a special responsibility to the House. It is a responsibility which she has woefully failed to discharge. In the annals of the House, there can be few, if any, holders of her office who have so conspicuously fallen short of what is expected of them so early in their term of office.
We are determined to resist the Government's devolution proposals, not only as the party of the nation, but as the party of the constitution and of Parliament. Our resistance to the Government's plan rests on our conviction that it runs contrary to the genius of this country and breaks every constitutional principle and precedent. By their action today, the Government have confirmed us in that conviction. It is the action of an arrogant Government who hold Parliament in contempt and that is why we shall oppose them with all the energy at our command.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: For 18 years, some of us sat on the Bench behind where the former Home Secretary spoke from, so perhaps he will have some inkling of our feelings about the introduction of the guillotine. It is perhaps a bit salutary for some right hon. Gentlemen, who were very happy to see guillotines used on other occasions, to endure, if I may put it that way, some of the medicine that they dished out.
I have no qualms about supporting the Government on this occasion, because in my view the amendment paper of the House of Commons has been cheapened by a flood of frivolous amendments. Some of the amendments are undoubtedly extremely important, but some of them do the reputation of Parliament no good whatever. This matter is far too important to be the subject of frivolous, wrecking amendments. What concerns us is the need to have serious discussion.
Short speeches have been requested, but I must make one point. I hope that attention will be given to what we might call the Gary McAllister problem—the problem of the Scottish football captain—who is earning his living in England and cannot take part in a referendum. Like thousands of others working in England, however, he has a moral right at least to be considered. I say that not in a wrecking sense but because I think that there is a proposal for consideration. Consideration should be given to allowing those Scots in England who apply, bona fide, to take part in the referendum to do so.
Another problem is what might be called the Paul Lambert question. A number of Scots are working in the European Community, often for the Government or for the great firms of this country. It is indisputable that they feel that they should take part in a referendum, regardless of how they may vote. I want Ministers to give serious consideration to what can be called the Gary McAllister or Paul Lambert problem because there are thousands of people in their position.

Sir Norman Fowler: On several occasions during her response to questions last night the Leader of the House referred to the small number of Members present on Second Reading—the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) made a similar point—as

if that justified her action. That is a novel doctrine and it does not stand up, particularly as the guillotine is being introduced before the Committee stage has even started.
During my time as a Minister, I introduced a range of Bills and on some occasions the Opposition Benches were not full. I did not think that the Opposition's view was that in those circumstances a guillotine could be introduced automatically after Second Reading.
There is great irony in the Leader of the House referring to the Second Reading debate because, immediately following it, the Government had arranged a debate on the modernisation of procedures in the House of Commons. The right hon. Lady said:
I hope that by holding this debate so early in the Parliament, we have proved our serious intent in terms of facilitating improvements in the workings of Parliament."—[Official Report, 22 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 901.]
There is no point talking about the Government's serious intent to modernise Parliament to enable more scrutiny of legislation and to set up pre-legislation Committees, only for her to show their true intent by guillotining a constitutional Bill before its Committee stage begins. The only precedent that is claimed for this occurred under the previous Labour Government.
Conservative Members know that if my right hon. Friend the former Member for Braintree had been Leader of the House at this time, there is no way that he would have given way to the pressure that is being put on the Leader of the House by Ministers.
The Leader of the House is not even proposing the motion on the guillotine; I cannot remember a time when the Leader of the House did not propose such a motion. As the Secretary of State for Scotland said, this has been decided not by her, but by the Ministers responsible for the legislation.

Mr. Mike Hall: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way.
The Leader of the House is wrong for several reasons. First, there is no doubt that this is a constitutional Bill—one has only to read the explanatory memorandum to understand that. It is absurd for the right hon. Lady to argue, as she did last night, that it is a Bill of no great consequence. She described it as a simple, straightforward Bill of only six clauses. Surely we all accept that it is substantially more important than that. The Liberal Democrats' going along with her argument is a sign of what we had already guessed—that they will be as ineffective in opposition in this Parliament as they were in the last.
The second reason why the guillotine is wrong is that what the Leader of the House calls a simple, straightforward Bill contains important issues of principle—for example, who is enfranchised and what information is issued at the time of the referendum. It might be inconvenient for the Government, it might even take a few hours of debate, but surely no one can argue that the Bill is not important.
Thirdly, the right hon. Lady should stand up against her colleagues because it is clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, Ministers sitting at the Cabinet table have only one interest—getting their legislation through. They do not give a fig about


the rights of Parliament, and, quite frankly, Government Departments care and understand even less. That is why to have a strong Leader of the House, able and willing to stand up for the rights of Parliament, is so important.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, what is of great concern—this is a Commons matter—is that, step by step, power is being taken away from this House. There was no consultation on the change to Prime Minister's Questions. It was pushed through for one reason alone—not for the benefit of the House, but to make the Prime Minister's life easier and to save him facing the scrutiny that he would otherwise have faced twice a week. Policy announcements have been made outside the Chamber—

Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman would never have done that when he was in government, would he?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, I would not. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to find an instance of my doing so.

Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman knows that on many occasions his ministerial colleagues—

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman challenged me.

Mr. Wallace: Did the right hon. Gentleman, as chairman of his party or as a member of the Cabinet, ever acquiesce in his colleagues doing so?

Sir Norman Fowler: I asked the hon. Gentleman a straight question, to which he has given me a typical Liberal answer.
The guillotine motion is a further step in the Government's attempt to make the House of Commons a rubber stamp. That should offend not only Conservative Members, but anyone who regards the Chamber as important. One of the most revealing features of last night's statement was the reaction of Ministers. I speak not of the Leader of the House, but of her colleagues, who gave a sniggering response to questions. There was palpable self-satisfaction in a group who clearly felt, "We are the masters now." Well, they are the masters now and they will get their guillotine; there is no question about that. However, their triumphalism and arrogance are already sowing the seeds of their destruction.

Mrs. Betty Williams: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to make my maiden speech so early in this Parliament, especially in a debate on a matter very close to my heart and the hearts of many of my colleagues.
I am privileged and truly honoured to be the first woman to represent the most beautiful constituency of Conwy in north Wales. For almost 27 years, it was represented by Sir Wyn Roberts, who retired at the general election. I am aware that he is held in very high regard by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I should very much like to be associated with that view.
To describe my constituency requires superlatives that I may not have mastered in the English language. I would feel more at home in my native tongue of Welsh, memorably described as "iaith y nefoedd" by Gruffydd Robert Milan over 400 years ago in 1567, I believe. For those not versed in the Welsh tongue, "iaith y nefoedd" means "the language of heaven".
The Conwy constituency includes not only the beautiful town of that name but several other major centres. Tourism is a major industry. Exemplified by that queen of resorts, Llandudno, tourism encompasses the whole of the constituency, providing natural attractions of mountain and sea as well as historic buildings.
Industry and commerce are less well represented in my constituency than I would wish, and it will be my hope that this Parliament will be able to provide encouragement to their development. Indeed, I welcome the comments made last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales when he said that he wants a new focus for the Welsh Development Agency and to see more jobs created in the valleys and in western and north-western Wales. Such development is vital if we are to reduce the scourge of unemployment. In my constituency, youth unemployment is unacceptably high, and our young people will most certainly find encouragement in the Gracious Speech.
The old slate quarrying town of Bethesda has a special place in the hearts of trade unionists and of members of my party. It is not quite 100 years since the workers of Penrhyn quarry stood up to the might of their employer for three long years. Bloodied but unbowed by that struggle, they would welcome the Gracious Speech, as do their descendants today, for what it offers for a fairer society.
The majority of those quarry men and their families were members of Welsh chapels. Our chapels and eisteddfodau were crucial in the religious, political and cultural development of the Welsh nation. It was by pennies collected through the chapels and from house to house that Bangor gained its "Coleg ar y Bryn"—"the college on the hill". Now it is a constituent college of the university of Wales and enjoys worldwide fame for its academic excellence. I should perhaps declare an interest in my affection for Bangor. I was born there, and it is where—two years ago, as a mature student—I obtained my degree.
The tradition of local collection continues to the present day. So when the need was identified for a new cancer treatment unit at the Ysbyty Gwynedd hospital in Bangor, it was local people who dug deep into their pockets to finance the building of it. I hasten to add that contributions were made not only by the people of my constituency but by those of surrounding constituencies, represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The magnificent sum of £1.25 million was collected through the dedicated efforts of many volunteers, spearheaded by Dr. Jim Davies. I applaud their efforts, and am confident it will not be long before building begins.
The academic standards of our university, excellent as they are, will be greatly improved by raising standards in primary and secondary education. A reduction in primary school class sizes and the improvement in training for head teachers are important steps in that direction. It will,


I believe, be a great encouragement to all those in education, from primary through to university level, to know that the Government's No.1 priority is education.
In such a diverse constituency, it has been particularly gratifying to me to appreciate how much the Gracious Speech reflects the wishes of so many for devolution. It is significant to note that, on the occasion of my predecessor's maiden speech, in 1970, he looked forward to
a general devolution of power from central Government",
and said that the people of Wales would then feel that they would
have a greater voice in the conduct of their affairs."—[Official Report, 9 July 1970; Vol. 803, c. 893.]
I hope that I am not being too controversial for this occasion to express the view that since 1970, over a period of 27 years, his wishes have not been achieved. During the past few weeks, however, Sir Wyn Roberts, having retired from this House, has once again expressed his support for devolution. I welcome his comments.
Of course, the Labour Government of 1974–79 offered devolution to the people of Wales. I supported those proposals and campaigned for them. I am delighted that, as a Member of Parliament, I shall have a further opportunity—a real opportunity—to campaign for devolution. I am particularly pleased that the Government have moved so quickly to fulfil the election commitment to establish a Welsh Assembly. It is the best possible demonstration of our will to ensure that the people of Wales are democratically governed with proper accountability. As that is perhaps a new concept for many people, it will be for those of us in this House who respect and believe in the democratic system to campaign with vigour to ensure that the people of Wales understand the opportunity and, more important, that they grasp it.
I am sure that many hon. Members have, like me, spent many years in local politics at community, district and county levels, dealing at first hand with local problems and issues. So often, those problems were my problems and we worked with the local authorities to solve them. It was called partnership. Government should be as close to the people as possible; it should be a partnership. This will be an historic decision, and it is vital that local people take up the opportunity to establish a Welsh Assembly. It will bring decisions closer to the people in Wales and end rule by unaccountable quangos. Power will be decentralised as much as possible, which can only be good for jobs, good for health and social services, good for education, good for other public services and good for the people of Conwy and the people of Wales.
We are on the threshold of history. That is why, in the coming months, I shall campaign hard for a large yes vote in the devolution referendum. Diolch yn fawr iawn—thank you very much.

Mr. James Wallace: It is my pleasure and privilege to congratulate the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) on a very eloquent maiden speech. I am sure that all hon. Members who listened to her gained not only an insight into an attractive and diverse constituency but a feel for the spirit of the constituency and its people. I congratulate the hon. Lady and look forward to hearing the many contributions that she will no doubt make to debates on devolution.
It was also refreshing to be reminded of the commitment of Sir Wyn Roberts to the decentralisation of power in 1970. The House will recognise and acknowledge the hon. Lady's tribute to him. It is refreshing that the issues on which Sir Wyn, and probably many other Conservatives, campaigned in 1970 will be brought to fruition.
I shall try to be brief because the less time spent debating the timetable motion, the more time there will be to deal with the first batch of amendments, and perhaps even to have more than one vote, although that is probably a triumph of hope over experience.
I do not accept that we are debating what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) described as a first-class constitutional Bill. As the Secretary of State for Scotland reminded us, we are debating an advisory referendum; there is nothing in it that will affect in any way the sovereignty of Parliament—if, indeed, we accept that Westminster is sovereign. That is a point of difference between us and the Labour party. Those of us who signed the Claim of Right in Scotland do not necessarily accept that principle.
It is also right for the Secretary of State to point to the precedents. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has reminded me of the guillotining of two Bills in one debate in December 1993—the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill. That move provoked such antagonism that the official Opposition broke off pairing arrangements. On that occasion, there was a guillotine before the Second Reading of both Bills and a special motion to allow Committee amendments to be tabled before Second Reading. Although we think that the referendum for Scotland is unnecessary, at least it will give a say to the people. Those Bills gave Ministers considerable power to introduce secondary legislation that would have a pecuniary impact on many businesses, particularly small ones.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said earlier, the timetabling of proceedings on Bills was recommended by Jopling. I think that it is better to timetable before the start of Committee proceedings than to do so part way through, after drawn-out debates on a limited number of clauses and amendments, which often results in the clauses and amendments in the second half—or not even the second half, but the remaining two thirds or five sixths—of the Bill being given very cursory consideration. Parliament has often not done its job properly because it has not had adequate opportunity to scrutinise the latter stages of a Bill.
My party's publication, "A Parliament for the People—Proposals to Reform the House of Commons", suggested an all-party legislative steering committee to consider the programming of Bills to ensure that all parts are properly scrutinised. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the proper timetabling of Bills during her inquiry into the reform of the procedures of the House. We can do much more on that.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does my hon. Friend recognise that that argument is not peculiar to the Liberal Democrats? It was


advanced by the legislative committee of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government, chaired by the distinguished Conservative Lord Rippon of Hexham.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. The Jopling recommendations commanded broad support on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) earlier repeated the frequently made argument that guillotines are the enemy of Back Benchers. I am not sure that that is right. There will be an opportunity for proper debate of the amendments tabled by those of us who are not in the official Opposition and those tabled by the official Opposition. That would not necessarily have been the case otherwise.

Mr. Luff: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a significant number of important amendments tabled by the minority parties cannot be debated under the terms of the motion, including an important amendment on tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Wallace: The point that I had just finished making was that the timetable allows for debate of the minority parties' arguments. We have tabled amendments to consolidate the two questions in Scotland into one. The Government do not agree, but we have a legitimate argument and there will be time for that debate. The Scottish National party wants a third question in a multi-option referendum. I do not agree with that, but I accept that it is a legitimate issue for the House to debate and is relevant to the referendum. There will be time to debate that.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked the shadow Home Secretary why the official Opposition had not got round to tabling amendments about the threshold. For once, the hon. Gentleman was not accurate. New clauses 22 to 25 provide for a threshold by requiring a 65 per cent. turnout. However, those new clauses are all starred. The Conservatives did not get round to tabling them until yesterday, suggesting that the leadership collective could not make up their minds on the issue.
The timetable motion was tabled because of the host of frivolous amendments on the amendment paper. I use the word "frivolous" advisedly. I have just appeared on "Westminster Live" with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who admitted that some of the amendments were frivolous.

Mr. William Hague: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He did, however, mention the frivolous amendments to which I have referred. I will describe some of them.

Mr. Hague: I actually said that if any amendments were frivolous, they would not have been selected for debate by the Chair.

Mr. Wallace: If the right hon. Gentleman gets a transcript of the programme, he will find that he did

describe some of the amendments as frivolous. One example is amendment No. 240, in the name of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), which says of Scotland:
No referendum shall be held on any day other than St. Andrew's Day.
This year, St. Andrew's day is on a Sunday, but that does not matter because we also have amendment No. 184, which says:
No referendum shall be held on any day other than a Sunday.

Mr. Luff: That amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman says that the amendment was not selected. My point is that those amendments are an insight into the mindset of those who tabled them. The amendments are on the amendment paper and the hon. Members concerned cannot run away from the kind of amendments—

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You, like me, have been a Committee Chairman for many long years. You know very well that no Chairman can dictate what is or is not tabled. You equally know that no Chairman would select a frivolous amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Selection is done, I hope, on an objective basis that stands the test of time.

Mr. Wallace: I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, show much more good sense in the selection of the amendments than do those who tabled them.
My point concerns the kind of amendments that were tabled. Amendment No. 186 says:
No referendum shall be held for a period of less than two days.
That amendment was tabled by the same person, the hon. Member for North Essex, who said that the referendum should not be held on any day other than a Sunday. We would need to have a month of Sundays, or perhaps the suggestion is that the referendum should be held on two consecutive Sundays, like the French elections.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Tory Members who tabled the frivolous amendments will take an active part in the referendum campaign in Scotland or in Wales, or will they leave the active campaigning to their hon. Friends in Scotland and in Wales?

Mr. Wallace: There is a difficulty in that those Tory Members do not have any hon. Friends in Scotland or in Wales. As the—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We have many voters.

Mr. Wallace: The words used were "hon. Friends". The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said that the Conservatives were the party of the nation. One nation Conservatism is now England, and only part of that. No longer does the Conservative party speak for the nation in Parliament, which is an important point to remember.
Last night, I referred to amendment No. 189, which says:
Voting in the referendum shall only take place during daylight hours.
That is a travesty. What about the men and women of the night who would not be allowed an opportunity to vote if such an amendment were accepted?
The timetable motion allows for debate on some important issues. It would be better to go on from here and to have proper programming of legislation. I hope that we shall achieve that in this Parliament. That is the way to achieve the proper scrutiny of Bills rather than leaving it to chance—

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of proper scrutiny, are the hon. Gentleman and his collective colleagues, if I may use those words, in favour of proper scrutiny of the crucial devolution White Paper?

Mr. Wallace: I have no doubt that there will be a debate on the White Paper. More importantly, we would certainly expect proper scrutiny of legislation flowing from that White Paper. I do not see how, except in a one-day debate, we could have scrutiny of a White Paper. The House would, however, expect proper scrutiny of any legislation that followed. I believe that the House will get proper scrutiny.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wallace: I had concluded my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has concluded his remarks.

Mr. Francis Maude: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams). All Conservative Members will have appreciated her kind remarks about our old friend and colleague, Sir Wyn Roberts. The only advice he would have added to what she said was that if she addresses the House in a prolonged way in the native language of which both he and she are rightly proud, she may not always be addressing a Chamber quite as well filled as this. I congratulate her, however, on a speech that was well delivered with a nice light note and we look forward to much more from her.
I have been out of the House for five years—what is delicately known as broken service. I hope, therefore, that I may be indulged if I make one or two remarks about my predecessor, Sir Peter Hordern, who represented Horsham with great dedication for more than 32 years. He did great service to his constituency where he is still very much loved and I know that he attracted a lot of affection and admiration in the House.
Sir Peter never sought high office; he believed that representing his constituents in the United Kingdom Parliament was high enough privilege in itself, as I do. He believed that it was the function of this House to scrutinise legislation and to act as a proper check on what

the Government did. He always did that, whether he sat on the Government Benches or on the Opposition Benches. That is what is important in this debate.
When I first came into the House 14 years ago, I, too, was part of a landslide. I came in when the Conservative party had a majority of 144, yet we did not believe then that we owned the House of Commons because we had had a big election victory. We believed that the House of Commons had its rights and that those rights had been fought for for centuries and were to be preserved, even at the Government's inconvenience.
The Government have become a little confused on some specific points. There seems to be some confusion about whether they consider the Bill to be a constitutional Bill. The Prime Minister does—or did. In his speech during the debate on the Gracious Speech on 14 May, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked him to give an undertaking that
any constitutional measures"—
my hon. Friend was not referring specifically to this Bill—
will be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House",
the Prime Minister replied:
As I have said before to the hon. Gentleman, the referendum Bill will of course be taken on the Floor of the House."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 67.]
The Prime Minister clearly thought that the Bill was a constitutional measure.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office also thought that the Bill was a constitutional Bill. When he wound up the debate on Second Reading, he specifically referred to it as being a constitutional measure. He said:
The Government want to ensure that debates are properly scrutinised and have the maximum participation"—
words that must be sticking in his craw at the moment—
of every part of the House.
The hon. Gentleman was not talking about general constitutional measures; he was talking about this Bill. He said:
That should be the case when we are dealing with serious constitutional issues."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 804.]
We need to know whether the Government believe this to be a constitutional Bill. If it is a constitutional Bill, how can it be right, before we have even embarked on the Committee stage, for the Government to act in this way to gag debate? If it is not a constitutional Bill, but it is, as the Leader of the House said last night and as the Secretary of State for Scotland said today, merely a technical or paving Bill, why is it being taken on the Floor of the House at all? The House is entitled to have answers to those questions.
Whatever the answer, the House is being denied the opportunity for proper scrutiny. It is being denied the opportunity for detailed consideration of amendments and clauses, sometimes at inconvenient length, in Standing Committee because the Bill is being considered here, where there is more pressure on time. Having discussed the Bill here on the basis of its being a constitutional Bill—or not, we do not know because no light has been shed on the matter—the opportunity for maximum debate in all parts of the House, as the Minister of State promised, has been removed.
It would be helpful if the Minister who is to wind up the debate could shed some light on another matter. Will the full, substantive devolution Bill be published before the referendums take place? Again, we have had conflicting messages on that. On 14 May, the Prime Minister was challenged on the subject by the leader of the Scottish National party. The Prime Minister said:
Of course the Bill will be published in time for the referendum, because the referendum will take place on those proposals.
That is the last we have heard of that suggestion. Since then, all the talk has been merely that the White Paper will be published before the referendum. The question is not just dancing on the head of a pin, because the sequence matters.
The sequence that is now proposed is the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill; followed by a White Paper; followed by the referendum; followed by the devolution Bill if the referendum is favourable; followed by implementation. We all know—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has made it clear, and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has also made the point—that there can be great differences between the aims and aspirations of policy set out in a White Paper and how they are translated into practice and into hard statutory fact when a Bill comes before Parliament. That fact makes a difference to the Bill we are considering today, because of the effect of the referendums. A referendum that has been held on a published Bill, albeit not yet enacted by Parliament, will have a different effect from one that has been held on a mere set of policies set out in a White Paper.

Mr. Dalyell: May I clarify the right hon. Gentleman's reference to me? Whatever happens, it is my personal view, for what it is worth, that a final referendum should be held on the one meaningful question that can be asked, which is "Do you approve of the Scotland Act 1997—or 1998—as passed by Parliament?" That would mean another referendum.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman puts it very well and I do not want to add to or subtract from that point. A final referendum is desirable. It is what he has argued for and the way that it was done last time. It may be that that unhappy experience is carved deep on the minds of Ministers and led them to come up with this procedure. The dynamic of the procedure matters a great deal.

Mr. Dewar: I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to labour mightily under a misapprehension. It is clear from the passage that he quoted, if one reads the whole passage, that it was a reference to the White Paper, and everybody understood that. To avoid all doubt, we propose that the White Paper should be published before the House rises—

Mr. Fallon: And debated?

Mr. Dewar: Yes.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Not guillotined.

Mr. Dewar: Someone is showing his grasp of parliamentary procedure. I wish to make it clear that a

White Paper will be published before the House rises. It will set out the scheme in some detail and the referendum will be held on the basis of the proposals in the White Paper. We will go on from there, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) would expect.

Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman says that I am under a misapprehension, but if so it is a widespread one. What the Prime Minister said was very clear. He was asked in terms by the leader of the Scottish National party:
Can he tell the House exactly when he expects to publish the Scottish devolution Bill?
The answer was:
Of course the Bill"—
not the White Paper—
will be published in time for the referendum".
That was not just a casual remark, because the Prime Minister went on to say:
because the referendum will take place on those proposals."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294. c. 64.]
He did not say it will take place on the White Paper. That matters because all the unanswered questions that lie in the morass that the Government are in must be resolved. They cannot be resolved only in the White Paper: they must be resolved in hard statutory fact by a Bill.

Mr. Salmond: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that that was what I asked the Prime Minister and that that was his answer, and it is in Hansard. I also remind him that the Prime Minister has not always recently shown himself to be fully in command of this subject.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman may think that: I could not possibly comment. The Prime Minister must answer for himself. If he got it wrong, he should come to the House and say so. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that that is a pompous suggestion, but the Prime Minister made that apparently considered remark to the House of Commons. I happen to think that the House of Commons matters and that the Prime Minister should consider what he says to us to be important.

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman may criticise and make his point, but I do not want him to be under a misapprehension. If he has been following the debate with care, including speeches made on several occasions and other statements by the Government, he will understand that the situation is straightforward and well understood, certainly by most of my hon. Friends. He is in danger of making myths.

Mr. Maude: I do not think so. I cannot say whether the Prime Minister was not in command of his brief or whether the policy has been changed and made on the hoof, as has happened so often in this tawdry saga. If the Prime Minister made an honest mistake, as the Secretary of State suggests, let him come here and tell us. The House of Commons deserves no less.
The point matters because of the dynamic of the sequence of events. The Government propose to publish some proposals in a White Paper that may—or may not, we do not know—deal with the great unanswered questions that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and others


have raised, including the West Lothian question, and others about scrutiny of the spending of money raised by this House but disbursed by the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. How will that money be controlled and what will happen to the funding formula? Those are substantial and important matters, and they must be resolved. Will they be dealt with satisfactorily in the White Paper? I do not think so.
Those matters must be set forth in a draft Bill so that the people of Scotland and Wales can make a mature and considered judgment about whether they like the look of the creature that is offered to them. If they do not, as I suspect they may not, that should be tested fully. Otherwise, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, the people will be offered a pig in a poke. It may be accepted because the details will be unclear, but the questions will remain unanswered.
If the proposals are accepted, the Government will claim that they have a mandate. They will claim that they have not only the endorsement of their fabled manifesto in the general election, but the endorsement given by the referendum. They will say that they do not need to bother with any more tiresome business in the House of Commons and they will just bang the proposals through. If the Secretary of State for Scotland thinks that that is scaremongering, he should remember what the Prime Minister said on the issue, in his first debate as Prime Minister, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire:
There will be ample time for debate"—
on the substantive devolution Bill—
but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that if the firmly established will of the Scottish and Welsh people is demonstrated in the referendums, the people will not expect us to be game-playing here—they will expect us to legislate."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 67.]
That is a chilling indication of what is to come. The Government will bang through this wretched Bill without proper debate, seek a popular mandate in the referendums, then come back here and say, "Tough luck House of Commons, we have got our mandate. You can go hang." That will not do.
I said at the outset that I first entered the House as part of a landslide victory. I remember the feeling that that induced. We had a majority—not quite on the grandiose scale of the Government's, but not far off—but we did not believe that a big election victory translated into the Government owning the House of Commons. Indeed, rather than blasting through measures that reduced the House of Commons' power, one of the first things we did after winning in 1979, was to enhance it and make life more difficult for the Executive. We introduced Select Committees, which have been an adornment to the House—not always convenient to those of us who have been Ministers, and often a nuisance—and have enhanced its ability to hold Ministers to account.
The Government are only a month old, yet a pattern is developing—a pattern of thinking that they can take the House of Commons for granted, feeling that, because they have most of the seats in the House, they own it. Well, they do not. This House has been here for much longer than this Parliament or this Government and it will be here for a long time afterwards. Its powers may be reduced as a result of this legislation and what the Prime Minister decides to hand over in Amsterdam in a few weeks' time, but it will continue to take seriously its historic task of holding the Government to account.
I hope that the Government will at least do the House the courtesy of answering some of the questions that have been asked. Will the devolution Bill—if we get to that stage—be debated on the Floor of the House in Committee? Unquestionably, it is a major constitutional measure, yet all we have heard so far has been waffle and prevarication: "Well, it will all have to be looked at; it is all very difficult. Who can tell?" If it comes about, it will be one of the most important constitutional measures this century. If it is not to be taken step by step, clause by painful clause and amendment by amendment on the Floor of the House, it is difficult to envisage what should be.
The second question to which we need an answer today is: when it is debated on the Floor of the House—I do not believe that even this Government, with their breathtaking arrogance, will refuse to allow that—will a guarantee be given that no more timetable motions will be tabled and that, unlike today, proper time to debate will be provided? If, at the end of this debate, Ministers fail to answer those questions, they will have damaged their reputation even more.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Home Secretary, at the outset of the debate is worth repeating. He quoted from "Erskine May". Describing guillotine motions, it says:
They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate.
The guillotine is not lightly used and not applied without reason. The usual reason is to counter delaying tactics, actual or threatened, amounting in the Government's view to obstruction.
If I have to take responsibility at all as an Opposition Back Bencher, I must accept the general rebuke of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—it is not worth pretending otherwise. Some silly amendments have been tabled in the sense that they would not lead to much light being thrown on the Bill.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Which particular ones?

Mr. Garnier: I do not want to confuse the right hon. Gentleman; he is not a man of great thought. Nor do I want to delay the debate.
As the Secretary of State for Scotland admitted, on occasion, Opposition Back Benchers table amendments which they know are unlikely to draw favour from the Chairman of Ways and Means. The important point, however, is that, among the amendments tabled, plenty of subjects that deserve sensible debate are raised. As a consequence of the timetable motion, a raft of those important issues will not be debated. They include the publication and form of the Government's proposals, procedures for the conduct of the referendums, the name and tax-raising powers of any Welsh Assembly, the financing and organisation of the referendum campaign


and, perhaps most important, the required majorities—the threshold question. None of those is to be debated. Whether the Government like it or not, those issues are entitled to be debated, yet by virtue of the timetable motion, they are unable to be debated, let alone voted on.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, in partly pooh-poohing the subject of precedent—which was interesting for a lawyer—attempted to draw comfort from the proceedings on the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill in 1977. He said that, under a Labour Government—some precedent that—guillotine motions were moved before the Bills went into Committee. What he failed to say was that the timetable motions permitted, under the Scotland Bill, 17 further days of debate, and, under the Wales Bill, 11 further days of debate—not the two very limited days with which we are presented today.
As an Opposition Member of a party that has been badly defeated, I must accept that the arithmetic of the House means that the timetable motion and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill will go ramming through and that we will have what I gather is now called an advisory referendum in due course, whatever that may be. That is a fact of life with which I must come to terms. Nonetheless, the Government are seeking to stifle arguments that ought to be deployed and arguments that my constituents want to be deployed.
The attitude to opposition and argument is informed by comments made by those who now sit on the Treasury Bench. It is instructive to read an article that appeared in The Western Mail on 23 April—during the election campaign. The new Secretary of State for Wales was asked about the devolution Bill. After making some rude remarks about the then Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord MacKay, pooh-poohing his ability and right to hold views on matters of political interest, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The Labour party will have a very clear mandate, and it's offensive to any democrat to countenance the unelected House of Lords interfering in the democratic process.
It just so happens that, under our constitution, the House of Lords is very much part of our democratic process and constitutional arrangements. How one gets there is another matter and, perhaps, for debate another day. Huge chunks of debates that we may or may not be having over the next few days will lead to the Bill going to another place without many of the issues being considered.
The Secretary of State for Wales went on to say in The Western Mail article:
The process by which the devolution legislation that will be passed through the House of Commons will be a matter for the House of Commons …The next House of Commons will decide its own procedure. The Labour Party has included in its manifesto very precise details of our intention of a referendum. If we have a Labour Party elected on its manifesto, it will have a very clear and precise mandate and, in compliance with the Salisbury convention, the next Labour government will brook no interference from people who speak for no one but themselves and their own vested interests.
The House should notice the language. It is the language of the Lord Protector, the control freak. [Interruption.] Notice how Labour Members smirk and snigger when they are brought to understand. Not everybody agrees with them. Of course the Government have a majority. Let them smile and smirk at it. On behalf of our constituents, we as Opposition Back Benchers are entitled to expect to be listened to with some respect in the House.
Ministers may disagree with us and think that we are out of date and wrong and have nothing to say. They may sit there smirking, as the Secretary of State for Wales is doing; last night, all around him, sat his little friends, the Stepford wives, who have been told not to say anything for fear that they might offend him or the Chief Whip or the Minister without Portfolio—let alone the Excalibur information system that we now have to contend with. Ministers sit there smirking, saying, "We are the masters now." Has not the language become totally Orwellian? Servants now equals masters.
Who else can we turn to for instruction about the way in which the Government now operate? The Secretary of State for Scotland, as Opposition Chief Whip, was on the BBC programme, "Analysis", on 24 April

Mr. Ron Davies: It says here.

Mr. Garnier: It does indeed, and it is worth repeating. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like it, but I intend to say it several times so that people outside know what sort of Government we have to cope with
The then Opposition Chief Whip said that we would have "adequate scrutiny and debate". If he thinks that this timetable motion leads to adequate scrutiny and debate, when in fact it denies the opportunity to debate a series of most important issues, he has a most interesting idea about the English language. He went on:
We want to talk with other parties about the best way of achieving this".
Did Ministers talk through the usual channels to the Opposition? I do not know about the other parties, but I doubt whether they bothered to listen to the official Opposition.
When pressed on the point, the right hon. Gentleman continued:
if you look at, for example, enormously important constitutional bills recently, the biggest single transfer of sovereignty to the European Union was the Single European Act. That was put through by this Conservative government, and they did it with a timetable motion in double quick time.
Let us examine the facts. There had been three days' debate on one clause of the Single European Act in a Committee of the whole House before the guillotine was introduced. That guillotine debate was not confined to the usual three hours but was given additional time. A good deal more time was allowed following the guillotine motion for debate on that issue.
The Secretary of State said:
I don't want to abuse the House. I certainly don't want to abuse people's right to scrutiny and debate and we will make very sure that this is done adequately and this is done properly.
Is that what he has done on this occasion? Is that what this timetable motion allows for? I do not think so.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garnier: I shall finish this quotation and then I shall certainly give way. The Secretary of State said:
If we have a bill that has been endorsed at a General Election and in this case, the double lock of being very very specifically endorsed in a referendum in both Scotland and Wales, then clearly


it would be very silly for a government to say that a minority which is honourably but in our view mistakenly opposed to it, should be allowed to hold it up interminably.
Nobody is suggesting that the Opposition intend to hold up the Bill interminably, but there are some important issues that are being denied debate and a vote. That is why it is not far-fetched to suggest that the language used by the then Opposition, the new Government, is the language of Orwell and the Star Chamber.

Mr. Maclennan: The moment has almost passed, but I wanted to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he really thought that an advisory referendum such as we are considering in this debate has any resemblance whatever to the transfer of powers under the Single European Act which the Conservative Government countenanced and indeed forced through with a rather tight guillotine.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman sadly misses my point, which is that the way in which the then Opposition Chief Whip and the then shadow Secretary of State for Wales were speaking informed the way in which they have approached this timetable motion. They do not seem to care about what Opposition parties have to say. They do not want a debate; they find it inconvenient. They have 200 Back Benchers who are getting fidgety, and whose time they would prefer to be spent elsewhere, rather than getting cross with their Whips.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made a powerful speech and spoke most kindly about his predecessor, who served the House extremely well for many years. During that speech, he quoted my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and the Prime Minister's reply. The second part of that reply is yet further evidence that the Government have no idea about the rights of Parliament and the need to debate fully. They sit there smirking and turning round to their hon. Friends, nudging and winking and saying, "We are the servants—which really means the masters—now."
The Prime Minister said:
There will be ample time for debate, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that if the firmly established will of the Scottish and Welsh people is demonstrated in referendums, the people will not expect us to be game-playing here—they will expect us to legislate."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 67.]
Quite frankly, he is saying, "Stuff Parliament; what we say goes, and we will ram it home." It is a case not only of game-playing but of the Prime Minister and the Government taking the whole deck of cards off the table and sweeping the stake money away with it.
I do not believe that the House has ever seen a more disreputable motion. Regardless of whether one agrees with the Bill, after today's and last night's performances, the Government should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I listened with great care and interest to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Before any comments are made, a la Leader of the House last night, let me say that I sat through one and a half days trying and failing to get into the debate on Second Reading, so I feel it fully legitimate that I should speak on the motion.
Normally, one enjoys crossing swords with the Secretary of State for Scotland, as Conservative Members in particular have great respect for his skills and intellect and, not least, for his sincerity. Knowing that he was previously Opposition Chief Whip, I do not want to ruin any prospects of promotion, so I shall say that his sincerity is a deep-rooted veneer. I suspect that that will help him more than anything else.
Last week, the Secretary of State said that the measure was "of great importance". The fact that it is being debated on the Floor of the House shows that it is a constitutional measure. We can debate all day about whether it is a constitutional measure of the first importance; but the fact remains that it is a constitutional measure.
I urge the Government to think carefully about that, because the reason for so many amendments being tabled is the obscurity of what will follow. What follows is an open book: we have no idea what the detail of the devolution legislation will entail.
What we are being asked to enact is not a simple advisory measure, as we are told. The Secretary of State for Scotland made great play of the advisory point, saying that we would merely be asking the people for their opinion. What we are in fact asking the people in Scotland and Wales for is a blank cheque; we are asking them to say that the Government may do anything that they wish and that they have their approval.
Such a device has been used many times. It is alien to this country, but in other places, where people want absolute authority, it is used as a rubber stamp for what they may do subsequently. It is alien to the House and the country simply because we have always relied on the scrutiny of Parliament to get into the details.
I make no bones about this, because, although I have heard many comments from my hon. Friends about what should or should not happen on guillotines, I sat on the Government Benches throughout the Maastricht debates, believing quite legitimately that that legislation was wrong, and went through the line-by-line detail many times; I attended all the debates, which is something that many Labour Members did not do.
One or two of the minority parties may recall that, when we got into the detail of the Maastricht treaty, we found how deeply flawed the legislation before us was. Had we guillotined that legislation—as, sadly, I accept was done with the Single European Act—and forced it through the House, many of the things that we warned about would not have been spotted and could not have been rectified. Indeed, many cannot be rectified. None the less, they were spotted. I warned about the social chapter opt-out and was told, "You don't know what you are talking about. We will deal with it. It works." It did not work. The 48-hour working week was brought straight in.
I said all that at the time—but as a new Back Bencher, I would never have managed to speak if there had been a guillotine. I sat for hours waiting to contribute to many of those debates, and on clause after clause I failed to do so. Had there been a guillotine, I would never have made it.
The House is about the awkward squad, because it is the awkward squad that goes into the detail of legislation. I have heard Members from the minority parties talk about how good it is to timetable legislation. I am amazed and horrified by the idea that they, of all people, think that we should let any Government—it does not matter of which


party; I opposed my own Government on detailed constitutional legislation—have their way on such a matter without debate.
The reason why so many amendments were tabled to the Bill is that we know not what will follow. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has made that point many times. For example, among the amendments that I have tabled is No. 142, which would add to the back of the Bill a little device allowing the Scottish and Welsh people to say whether they thought that there should be a second referendum after the detailed devolution legislation had been enacted.
My amendment has not even been selected, so it will not be debated, and such a device is unlikely to be used. Yet surely only when the detailed legislation has been passed by the House can we go to the people and say to them, "Is this what you said you wanted? Because it does not work—or at least, some of us think that it does not—and here are the reasons why." That must be the right device. The reason why there was so much outrage—it was not synthetic outrage—about what happened last night was because, behind closed doors there was a debate in Cabinet. [Interruption.] Oh yes, we know that there was a debate, and we probably know that the Leader of the House said, "This is not the way to go."
However, the others must have replied, "Don't worry. We have a big majority and we can do anything we like. The House of Commons doesn't matter. What the heck does it matter? We can shut it up any time we like. Let's do it now, before that lot are organised, before they can get themselves sorted out. Ram it through, no problems. When it comes to the vote, they won't know what they are voting on, and will probably say, 'Yes, yes, let them have it. We don't have to worry about the devolution debate. Don't worry, just pass it. Then, we can say that the devolution legislation doesn't have to be taken on the Floor of the House, because the people have said, basically, that they want it. Furthermore, for that same reason—because the people have said that they want it—the legislation should go through at great speed." That would be the beginning of a serious abuse of authority, which I predict will happen as a result of the measures that we shall pass in the next few weeks.
There are many unanswered questions about thresholds, and about the disfranchisement of people such as my parents. Until five years ago, they lived in Scotland, and they voted in the previous devolution referendum. For reasons of ill health, they had to move to another part of England, but their hearts still lie in that country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Another part of England?"] Yes, they moved to another part of England.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is Scotland a part of England?

Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I did not refer to that. I said that my parents moved to another part of England, having previously at one stage also been there. The hon. Gentleman must be careful about how he interprets words.

Mr. Wigley: So must the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The reality is that those who have their hearts in a particular country, and have a view and

a reason to vote, will have no say. We can argue not one jot on that, or on the levels that will be taken during the course of the devolution debate.
We are seeing an arrogance, not because what is being done has not been done before, but because of the way in which the Government are driving the legislation through Parliament. I say to the Back Benchers who sit on the Government side, silent as the grave, nodding quietly in acquiescence with their Government, that in due course they will find that their Government will act against their interests.
Every day that those Back Benchers watch their Government wind this place up, they watch them wind away their chance to debate or to change things on behalf of their constituents. I say good luck to them, but I add, "Don't come back to us and apologise in a year's time."

Mr. Alex Salmond: With all due respect to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), I think that most hon. Members know that the reason why there was no guillotine on the Maastricht legislation was simply that the Government could not carry a guillotine motion on the Floor of the House. It was not because of any principle on their part.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said that, when he was in a position to manage such matters, he would never have countenanced such an action. However, when the right hon. Gentleman was chairman of the Conservative party and the Maastricht legislation was running into trouble in the House, there was no guillotine simply because such a motion would not have been carried.
Once we remove the whiff of humbug that the Secretary of State for Scotland described earlier—large lumps of House of Commons humbug would be a better description—the truth is that if Members of Parliament are in favour of particular legislation they support guillotines, but if they are against the legislation, they are fiercely against the guillotine.
I make an honourable exception for the Liberal party, because I understand that although, it is against the legislation—if I interpret Liberal Members' statements correctly they intend to vote against the referendum legislation—they are still sympathetic to the guillotine.
In 10 years in the House, I have voted for only one guillotine motion, so I suspect that I have voted for fewer guillotines than almost any other Member now in opposition. My experience is that people's support or otherwise for guillotines is basically determined by their support or otherwise for the legislation concerned.
The humbug arises because of the identity of the Members making the charges of arrogance and insensitivity. The Government have been guilty of arrogance in their short period in office; there is no doubt about that. However, the charge comes from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who, during his time as Home Secretary, was not noted for his humility in his approach to a whole variety of public business.
There are some colourful characters in my constituency who occupy the sheriff courts day in and day out, but I do not know any one of them who has had as many court


judgments against him as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did during his term of office as Home Secretary. For such a charge to come from the Conservative Front Bench takes some stomaching for the rest of us, who over the past few years have been subjected to guillotine after guillotine by those self same people.
I think that the Government should have waited until the debate had started. They should have let the filibuster become clear before they introduced the guillotine. The guillotine motion should have been looser, too. They have over-restricted debate, especially at the end of the debates on some of the amendments.
However, in response to the sort of amendments that have been tabled over the past 10 days, let me say that, basically, I support the timetabling of the Bill. Some of the amendments have been called frivolous. They are more than frivolous, they are insulting. Do Conservative Members not realise that it is insulting to the people of Scotland and Wales to table St. Andrew's day amendments and daylight hours amendments?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Those were not selected.

Mr. Salmond: No, but they were tabled by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. Surely the nature of those amendments tells us something about the nature of many Conservative Back Benchers' approach to the legislation.
Serious issues arise on the Bill, such as whether it is needed at all. In my view, it is at best an unnecessary delay, and at worst a dangerous gamble. Another serious issue is the number of questions that should be asked. The Liberal Democrats' amendment, which we may debate later, is perfectly valid.
In Scotland and in Wales, the idea of a multi-option referendum is a big issue, and there is massive support for one, with a majority in every party supporting the concept. I noted that one of the contenders for the Conservative leadership is also on the record as supporting a multi-option referendum. He is in opposition now, of course. The present Secretary of State for Scotland, too, supported such a referendum when he was in opposition, but the concept seems to grow somewhat distant when people are in government.
Those issues will be debated and voted on. I do not think that sufficient time has been allowed, but none the less, they will be debated and voted upon.
The shadow Home Secretary chose to highlight as one of his major objections the issue of thresholds. He told the House that that was a key issue, and therefore the guillotine motion was not appropriate. Rightly, in view of the likely timetable, he said that that issue would not force a debate or a vote.
At an earlier stage in our proceedings, I challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that precise question, and asked him whether the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen would table blocking devices, involving 40 per cent. rules—or even 50 per cent. rules, which another of the contenders for the Tory crown has been talking about recently.
The shadow Home Secretary replied:
The hon. Gentleman will have to restrain himself. In due course, he will see exactly what amendments the Opposition table".—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 735.]

As the Liberal Democrats have pointed out, as of yesterday, Opposition Front-Bench, as opposed to the Back-Bench, Members had tabled no amendments whatsoever on the matter. From Tory Back Benchers we have had 33, 40 and even 50 per cent. rules, but, until the amendments tabled yesterday and the starred amendments that appear on the Order Paper today, we had had nothing from Opposition Front Benchers. Even when new clauses 23, 24 and 25 were tabled yesterday, they were not about 40 or 50 per cent. rules but referred to the percentage of people voting—the turn-out in the referendum. I am glad that those amendments are not going to be treated seriously by the House. The reintroduction of that concept into politics disfigures democratic debate.
The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office is sitting on the Government Front Bench. He will remember from the previous referendum that the 40 per cent. rule was eventually attacked by both sides in the debate because it disfigured the way in which the debate was conducted. The idea that people could stay at home and influence the result of a democratic ballot was deeply disabling to democracy.

Mr. Wigley: People could even die.

Mr. Salmond: As the hon. Gentleman says, people who died at an inconvenient time would have been counted as against in the 1979 referendum in Scotland. In 1979, I was registered twice, once as a student and once at my home address. Because the registers of postal ballots were not published, I was not able to vote by post in St. Andrews. One of my potential votes was therefore counted against in the 1979 referendum. I legitimately appeared twice on the electoral roll but was entitled to vote only once. All those complexities were introduced by manipulation of the ballot and the 40 per cent. rule.
Internationally, if there had been a 40 per cent. rule in the Maastricht referendum in France, it would never have passed. Greenland would still be in the European Union. Perhaps we can understand now the objectives behind the Tory Back-Bench attempts to secure 33, 40 and 50 per cent. rules. More appropriately for the Conservative party, if we convert the Tory vote in Scotland to a percentage of the total electorate, the figure does not even reach the dizzy heights of 17 per cent.; it is 12.5 per cent.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The same applies to the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Salmond: It does not. Firstly, we got more votes, but, more importantly, I am not arguing from the dizzy heights of a mandate of 12.5 per cent. of the total electorate that there should be a 33, 40 or 50 per cent. stipulation in a referendum Bill. If there had been a 40 per cent. rule in general elections, no UK Government would have been elected since the second world war—and a good thing too, many of my constituents might say.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to do everything to assist the break-up of the United Kingdom, which is why he supports the guillotine. I accept that he has views on the amendments, but who is he—who is anyone—to say that we should not even debate new clause 19, which deals with thresholds? I would be prepared to withdraw all my other amendments to get a proper debate on that measure.

Mr. Salmond: If that offer had been communicated to the Government earlier, perhaps we would not be having


this debate. I have already said, if the hon. Gentleman was listening, that the guillotine should have been looser and that the debate should have started before the guillotine was introduced. However, no intelligent layman looking at the nature of the amendments could come to a conclusion other than that Conservative Members were involved in a deliberate wrecking mechanism aimed at immersing the Bill in parliamentary procedure for a long time.

Mr. Jenkin: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman underrates his wrecking powers. He was parliamentary private secretary to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, who argued for such a referendum. It seems strange that those of us who did not want a referendum want the Bill to go through or, at least, not to be bogged down in parliamentary procedure, while he now declares that he is fiercely opposed to the whole process.
Humbug is on display from both Labour and Opposition Members. The House has come to adopt arguments for convenience. Members who favour legislation are, by and large, sympathetic to guillotines. If Members are against a Bill, they invoke all sorts of constitutional arguments as to why the Government should not do something that they would have most certainly have done in government if the position had been reversed. I suggest that we will reach a position where we can make progress for Scotland and Wales, and do so in reasonable time.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a good attempt at debating new clause 19, which he deplored and said should never have been tabled. A great deal of humbug, to use his term, has been talked about the frivolity of the amendments. It is important to nail this one. No Committee Chairman—the Secretary of State for Scotland can smile as much as he likes—chooses wrecking or frivolous amendments. If he sought to do so, he would be dissuaded by the excellent advice of his Clerks. The fact that there are amendments on the amendment paper that may be described as frivolous is neither here nor there. They have not been selected, so they will not be debated. The argument is totally false.
I have voted against guillotines proposed by my party when in government. I deplore the foreclosure of legitimate debate by whomsoever it is proposed. I remember once saying in a guillotine debate when we were in government that we should never do things that we would not wish to be done to us. That has always been my maxim in this place.
Sensible timetabling is one thing, but a draconian timetable is very different. I have always favoured sensible timetabling of debates. I remember once leaving the Chamber in disgust when an important Bill was being discussed and it was not possible to debate many of its key aspects. That is always deplorable. The Government are doing that to the House, and doing it quite needlessly. They could have entered into an agreement for sensible timetabling through the usual channels. The shadow

Leader of the House made that plain in his first comment last night. We would then have had adequate debate on all the Bill's essential aspects.
I lay aside for the moment the question whether the threshold should be debated. Personally, I think that it should be. In any case, no one could deny that, central to the Bill, is the additional question on the ballot paper. I have tabled an amendment on that. The leader of the Scottish National party and I agree about the importance of that, although we come at it from different angles. I am a passionate believer in preserving the integrity of the United Kingdom; he takes a different line. I respect his view, although I profoundly disagree with it. Most profoundly of all, I disagree with the fact that the House will have only an hour and a half, including probably little more than an hour of Back-Bench speeches, to discuss that vital matter. That is to treat the House with disdain approaching contempt.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Patrick Cormack: In a moment. On Second Reading a fortnight ago, I said that I felt that the seeds of our troubles were sown when we got a very large majority in 1983. I quoted with some approbation the remarks of the much-castigated Lord Pym. I told Labour Members that, having understandably indulged in some euphoria, there was a danger that they would allow that euphoria to lapse into arrogance. We are already seeing that.
The House should not be treated with contempt by any Government, and especially by a Government who have many Back-Bench Members who will not, during the course of this Parliament, have any other opportunity to develop or deploy their talents than in the Chamber. Many of them will not be able to aspire to ministerial office; many of them will not become members of Select Committees; many of them will have only one place in which to exercise their talents, and that is the Chamber. That is no bad thing, in a way, because the Chamber should be the cockpit of the nation. It should be the place where we truly, properly and thoroughly discuss issues of great moment.
If, however, the Government are to pursue the course on which they have embarked this afternoon, they are delivering a blow that will lead to a cancerous frustration among their own Back-Bench Members. They are not allowing adequate and proper debate. If we had had four days to consider the Bill rather than two, I would have considered that a reasonable allocation of time. There would then have been a proper opportunity for reasonable debate on all the outstanding issues that are before us.
The Government would have suffered not at all. They would not have lost their legislation. We must be realistic enough to accept that the Government will get their legislation. At least their legislation would have been subject to some proper debate and more real scrutiny if we had been given four days rather than two. Those responsible for that legislation would have had to answer detailed and critical questions arising from the amendments at the Dispatch Box. What is more, there would have been a proper chance to vote on a number of amendments. That is a chance that we are being denied by an extremely ungenerous timetable.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Surely the parallel with the remark made or warning given by Lord Pym about the


abuse of power by a party with a huge majority is entirely inappropriate to the Bill that is before us. Indeed, there is no parallel. Lord Pym was warning us about a Government bent on centralising power, who had a very large majority to enable them to do just that. The Bill before us is about decentralising power. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways and accuse the Government of being arrogant about giving away some of their powers to the people of Scotland and Wales and subsequently, subject to referendums, to Assemblies and Parliaments in Scotland and Wales.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. I am warning about the arrogance of a Government, bolstered by an enormous majority, who feel that they can act as a juggernaut or steamroller and push everything through this place without adequate debate. It is—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can sit in his place and shout as much as he likes. He can blow his top as often as he wants.
Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, these are issues that arouse passion and real differences of opinion in this country. When I say "this country", I mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is "this country" as far as I am concerned.
I have referred to the honourable difference of opinion that I have with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, the leader of the Scottish National party. He passionately wants to see a fully independent Scotland. That is a legitimate aspiration and a reasonable ambition for him to hold. I have always respected the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) knows. The hon. Lady and I debated against each other during the devolution debates in the 1970s. I respect their position, but I profoundly disagree with it.
The motion before us annoys me because we are not being given an adequate opportunity to debate important issues in the Chamber. We know that the Government will not withdraw their allocation of time motion, but I beg them to be more sensible and sensitive when it comes to the substantive devolution legislation, which will come before us later this year. It is crucial that it is taken properly on the Floor of the House.
It follows from what I have already said that I do not object to a sensible and structured timetabling arrangement, but it must be one that does not prevent or stifle debate. It must provide adequate opportunity for us to test the various issues. To my mind, it is an insult to Parliament that we are not debating that legislation before we have the referendum. I entirely agree with what the very hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about the need for a further referendum after we have passed, assuming we do, devolution legislation.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: That is Michael Forsyth's position.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Indeed, that is Michael Forsyth's position. Sadly he is not here to argue it—would that he were.
I am aware that there are other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. That being so, I shall conclude my remarks by reiterating what I consider to be the most important point that I have sought to make this afternoon,

which is that the Government are treating the House with disdain approaching contempt. If they continue so to do, they will be sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
The Government should remember that on their Benches are serried ranks of new Members. They are glad that they are here and understandably rejoicing in the often unexpected triumphs that brought them to this place. They are men and women who will want to play a proper and structured part in debates on legislation that is put before us. If the Government deny them that opportunity, they will breed a resentment from which they will rightly suffer.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am glad that I was returned to this place in the recent general election, if only because I have heard for the first time—I knew that it would happen—a Conservative Front Bench spokesman speak against the guillotine. I have lived within these premises for nearly 18 years, and I have watched the Conservative Front Bench turn the guillotine into a constitutional device for destroying debate and the free expression of the people of this country.
We reached the position where we devised even more ways in which we could screw down public debate. We anticipated even Second Readings by insisting on a guillotine before they took place. We guillotined a new constitutional innovation. We guillotined Lords amendments before they had even come before us. That was the effect of our guillotine legislation. To hear my Front-Bench colleagues say that the guillotine is inappropriate cheers me and a wider circle of people who believe in Conservative trust, worthwhile government and honest principle.
As I said that, the then Opposition Members rose, as indignantly as I have heard Opposition Members today, to oppose every measure that came before us, including what became the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the anticipatory legislation that was introduced before the 1992 general election. Legislation was taken on a shovel. That is what we reduced the House to.
The danger of that approach is that it creates cynicism. By moving from one side of the Chamber to the other, we have the same rubbish thrown back at us. Let us not be in any doubt that the Bill is a major constitutional issue. It is inappropriate to introduce a guillotine because the Bill touches on the most delicate and important of all flowers in this nation of ours—and that is our Union. We have the absurd position of the Scottish National party, which, on the one hand, wants full integration with the union of Europe, but, on the other, wishes to smash the only Union that is of importance to many many of us.
What do I mean by "many many of us"? The 1991 census told us that 680,000 or 690,000 Scots-born people over the age of 18 were living in England. Similarly, about 500,000 Welsh-born people are living in England. Are they to be casually disfranchised? It is difficult to express the passion that brings together nearly 290 years, as it will be this year, of consanguinity and common language
If we hear rage and concern, it is because there is extremely deep concern that in the turning of this particular key and the opening of this door we walk through to something that is of profound importance and will be to the disadvantage of the Union.

Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of us on the opposite side of the Chamber have respected him greatly in these debates. But what rights does he think that the Scots in Aldridge-Brownhills have to participate in the proposed referendum? I should be extremely interested in his answer.

Mr. Shepherd: I was trying to explain, and I am sorry that I did not inform the House well enough. I am saying that we, each one of us, as part of a Union have a right to express our view on the nature and shape of that Union.
I wanted to move on to the second proposition. If we are to nationalise parts of the Union and bring back the feeling of Scottishness, Welshness and Englishness, how can we leave out of the equation, in the great affirmation of Scotland, the reason why I, who was born in Scotland, should be denied a vote on the future of the country for which I have sentiment and feeling, and which I believe should be part of an integral United Kingdom?

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may remember that a few years ago members of the Politburo in the old Soviet Union believed that referendums such as those in the Baltic states should have been conducted across the whole of the Soviet Union. Did the hon. Gentleman support that view at that time?

Mr. Shepherd: I have not often come into contact with the honourable leader of the Scottish National party, but it is absurd if Scotland is reduced to such trivia when dealing with these important matters. I am talking about consanguinity: no one has suggested that the Soviet Union was an area of consanguinity. We have been united by marriage and blood over several centuries.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

Mr. Shepherd: No, I want to explain why I want to attack the guillotine motion.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shepherd: No, I said no. The hon. Gentleman has spoken. I want to explain why I oppose this measure.
Almost half a million Welsh men and women live in England. Very few hon. Members could not trace a line to some part of the United Kingdom, which gives us a locus in equality on this matter. But that has been cast aside and we shall not even be able to discuss these issues.
I want to refer to the reputations of Governments. There were three guillotine motions during the Attlee Government and another three up to 1971, while in the 1980s under Mrs. Thatcher there were almost 60. Until circumstances reduced him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) instituted the course that was taken by the previous Government, to which I referred in my opening remarks. Such practice slowly

changes the nation's mind. People perceive Governments as arrogant or not sensitive enough to the basic political questions of the age. The Labour party is the great beneficiary of that.
The Government should not knock the genuinely expressed anxieties about the future of the Union. The simplicity of some of our amendments may not be to the satisfaction of some hon. Members, and they may have been excluded by the Chairman of Ways and Means, but they are not criticisms of substance; they are anxieties that have been raised. The House should be able to discuss familiar and important matters: that is the purpose of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We should consider the sensitivities and difficulties of English representatives who are trying to ensure that the referendum consolidates and does not break the Union. Many hon. Members want to preserve the Union. If that is the Government's ambition, I share it.
My fear is that we will not have sufficient time to reflect on people's niggles and anxieties. My mother lived in this country for 50 years. The Scottish nationalists may ask, "What does she know about Scotland?" It is a fact that, because of our language, we are informed about each area of the Union.
I ask the Government to reflect on this small measure, as they put it, because however persuasive the Secretary of State for Scotland may be, we fear that it is perhaps the beginning of the unravelling of what I call the most important Union for everyone in the House. Please listen to what we are saying, and reflect on the fact that the process by which the measure is achieved is important to the standing of the new Government and to the regard in which they are held.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I have listened to the debate, and I am astounded and stunned by the thoughts expressed by Conservative Members. We have had 18 years of Tory rule, and we have fought the general election. I have been in the House for 10 years, and I can safely say that during that time hardly a week or a month went by without the people of Scotland saying, "When will we get rid of the Tories? When will we have a Scottish Parliament of our own? When will our destinies be in our own hands?" The Tories have not learnt that lesson, and they have been wiped out in Scotland.
I have great respect for the hon. Members for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack): they are men of integrity and have made many speeches in the House. I do not like the guillotine any more than they do. However, the people of Scotland are sick and tired of waiting. They have been waiting for a devolved Parliament for more than 20 years. They are desperate, and they think that there has been enough talk. They want to see the establishment of that Parliament in Scotland; they want to participate and they want the services that a Scottish Parliament will decide on and deliver. It is not for us to continue the never ending story. If we talk, talk, talk, the people of Scotland will go for another 50 years without a proper Parliament.
I should have liked to debate the issues, but 240 nonsensical, wrecking amendments were tabled. Conservative Members could have tabled 20 amendments and spoken for an hour on each. Hon. Members should remember that this debate is being watched by the people


of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. People in other countries are also watching it, and they will not see us fail to deliver what we promised to the people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Graham: I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a minute.
Do hon. Members seriously think that the people of Scotland are half daft, and that we are still living in the days of the Picts and go about painted? We are not. We are educated people, and we can see quite clearly when the Opposition are out to wreck a measure for which the people of Scotland have spoken. There is not one Labour Member who did not put into his election address that he wanted a Scottish Parliament. We did not kid anyone in Scotland: we told them clearly that we want a Scottish Parliament.
We also came up with a referendum. The Labour party argued about whether it was for or against a referendum: yes, yes, no, yes, no. The Tories had a meeting in Scotland in a big tent. They had a pow-wow in a wigwam, but they could not smoke the peace pipe because they had broken it. They do not have a clue. They still do not understand that in a democracy we must listen to the people. The people of Scotland have put their cross on the ballot paper: they want a Labour Government and they want the House to deliver a Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Surely the point is that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends stood in the general election on their belief in devolution. Does he not agree that the problem is that we are putting the cart before the horse? If the Government put the devolution argument and then asked the people of Scotland to decide, we would not have this problem. The question could be put through the House quickly and then the people of Scotland could be asked. Why not have it that way?

Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman would make a fortune in the Glasgow Playhouse. That was comedy at its worst. The people of Scotland have said clearly that they want a Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again, I will be happy to listen to him.

Mr. Duncan Smith: My point is that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends stood on a platform of devolution and a Scottish Parliament. Why do the Government not debate the devolution legislation on the Floor of the House? With their majority, it would no doubt be passed. They could then ask the people of Scotland whether that is what they want.

Mr. Graham: How long has the hon. Gentleman been in the House? I have been here 10 years. The Tory Government never listened to us. We asked them to come up with a devolved Parliament and an Assembly: we pleaded with them, and we tried to do deals to ensure that it would happen. So did the Scottish National party, which has wanted their question on independence. I would not deny them. When the Tories had the opportunity, they did nothing for the people of Scotland.
The people of Scotland have done the business, so the House should also do the business. We have binned the Tories, and the only way back for them is to start listening

to the people of Scotland and to take steps to come into line and ensure that we have a meaningful Scottish Parliament.
I am sitting here listening tonight, but Conservative Members do not listen to the message that is coming from Tories in Scotland. They are dumb, and when they are dumb they cannot think. Certainly, they are not speaking on behalf of Scottish Tories. They have given that up. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has integrity; if we do not have such integrity in Scotland, the United Kingdom will be split asunder. The Tories should not run away from the argument. They should say that, if the people of Scotland want a Parliament, we should all work together to deliver the goods.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: May I make a simple point? We are expressing outrage about a guillotine motion. I think that we all want to engage in the subsequent development of the argument; it is the guillotine on discussion that we oppose. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there may be a settled will in Scotland.

Mr. Graham: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I understand where some other Opposition Members are coming from, but I know that the rest, deep down, want a mechanism to stop the process in its tracks because their view about Scottish devolution is so deeply entrenched. I have read some of the nonsense that has come from those who used to be Ministers.
I could be here all night, but I shall not be. I believe that the people of Scotland want devolution now, and I believe that the guillotine motion is appropriate. There has been enough talking. We want a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, serving the needs of the people of Scotland. It is time that the Tory party realised that; otherwise, it will never again play a part in global politics in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I regret the terms of the motion, but I deplore even more the arguments that have been assembled in favour of it.
First, we were told that this was somehow not a constitutional Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) blew that argument right out of the water. The Prime Minister thought that this was a constitutional Bill. Replying to me earlier, the Secretary of State described it as a small technical measure; yet on Second Reading his own Minister of State said that these were "not technical measures", and that after the referendum the Government would act in accordance with the results. I urge Government Front Benchers, if they want to retain any credibility in the matter, to say once and for all today whether or not this is a constitutional measure.
Secondly, the Government tried to justify the guillotine motion in a way in which I have never heard any timetable motion justified, speaking of the need to eliminate amendments that were either frivolous or esoteric. My amendment No. 121, which will be eliminated by the timetable motion, proposes arrangements for service men serving overseas to vote in the referendum. The amendment is not phrased in my own words, but precisely reflects the wording of an amendment making special arrangements for service men that the then Labour Government tabled to the last referendum Bill back in


1975. There are many Scottish service men serving in Scottish regiments overseas who will not be able to vote in the referendum because my amendment will now not even be debated, let alone voted on.
The suggestion that the timetable motion is needed to eliminate amendments that are frivolous or esoteric goes further: it usurps the function of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Clerks who advise him. The whole point of selecting amendments is that those that they regard as frivolous are not selected for debate. Furthermore, the timetable motion itself is unnecessary, because of the selection that the Chairman has made. Because of the way in which he has grouped amendments—in large groups, by large subjects—it would have been perfectly possible for the Government to secure their business by, if necessary, moving closure motions after two or three hours of debate on each group.
Finally, the Government have argued that there is a need for speed, not because of some legislative log jam, not because this is the last Session of a Parliament, not because of any special legislative requirements in terms of Scottish legislation—oh no. In the heat of the moment, the Leader of the House gave the game away last night, justifying the need for speed in the following terms:
If we did not take steps to ensure that there was a referendum in Scotland and one in Wales in the autumn we would be breaking a manifesto commitment."—[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 132.]
That is the start of a slide towards an elective dictatorship, putting the doctrine of the mandate ahead of the authority of the House. We should reject the motion today, and we should reject even more firmly the arguments advanced to sustain it.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) by asking, why the rush? When we wonder why the Government will not answer that question, we need to consider what is the source of the referendum in the first place. All those Members on the Government side now arguing in favour of a referendum originally never had the idea of a referendum in their heads. The referendum policy was thought up to serve as a sticking plaster to cover the splits in the Labour party over devolution, which were emerging when it was still in opposition.
What we want now is a referendum—that is the Opposition's policy, if these proposals are to be put to the Scottish people—but after the legislation has been passed. We want a referendum that will really establish what is the settled will of the Scottish people. The Government want this rush because the last thing that they want the Scottish people to do is seriously to consider the content and meaning of the referendum proposals. Let me tell the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) that that is what happened last time: they thought about it. The hon. Gentleman was elected on a mandate for a referendum, not a mandate for a Scottish Parliament. Whatever he personally may believe, there is no mandate for a Scottish Parliament—only a mandate for a referendum.
The referendum should consider all the issues, and all the details of the legislation. It should not be a referendum on a general question that will be thrown at the Scottish

people while the Government are still enjoying their honeymoon, and what the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), described as a loyalty vote in the new Labour Government.
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said earlier. Frustration will be stored up among Labour Members who really want to speak out on the issue. I remember the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), describing the programme for devolution as the Balkanisation of Britain. It is no surprise that the Scottish nationalists are supporting the proposal: they know that a headlong rush to settle the question as quickly as possible, before people have proper time to consider it, is the best way to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why we are so angry about the way in which the guillotine motion has been tabled. We need to debate the issues seriously, and to debate all the issues that arise in the amendments.

Mr. Ian Davidson: If the hon. Gentleman seriously wants a genuine debate, why does he table so many frivolous amendments?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know the nature of the probing amendment. Moreover, he well knows that the process of submitting amendments can be something of a lottery, because hon. Members never know which will be selected. We tabled many respectable amendments and some of them have been selected for debate. The hon. Gentleman does not dare to discuss them because he knows that the longer the Scottish people have to think about the proposals, the less enamoured of them they will be. He is involved in stifling the debate and he hopes to rush the measure through without proper thought because that is the only basis on which the referendum was acceptable to him.
The decision to have a referendum was taken not in Edinburgh or Glasgow but by the Islington branch of the new Labour party, much to the consternation of many Labour Members. It is about the management of the Labour party. The new Labour Government are desperately trying to contain their massive majority before their Back Benchers become restless and unhelpful. The Government know that the devolution measures could turn out to be their Maastricht if they allow them the consideration that they deserve.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: No doubt the hon. Gentleman's remarks are highly coloured by his probing adventure into Scottish politics. He will recall the number of votes that he received on that occasion. He talks about respectable amendments. Is the amendment calling for the referendum to be held on a Sunday respectable?

Mr. Jenkin: It is certainly reasonable to discuss the day on which a referendum might be held. I am surprised that the hon. Lady should remember my modest foray into Scottish politics. I am glad that I left such a good impression.

Mr. William Hague: The debate was graced by the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), who spoke well of he


fascinating constituency. I came to know it quite well and I share her admiration for it. She said that she would have been more comfortable speaking in the language of heaven, which is her native tongue. She spoke well in her second language and we all welcome her to the House. The hon. Lady's speech was a good advertisement for Parliament, and it was a relief to hear such a speech from a Labour Member.
The House heard the first speech following his return to the House of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). We welcome him back. He reminded us that hon. Members have roles and rights and that the House has rights. He said that democracy involves not only the majority having its way, but the minority having its say. He told the House that Ministers have said that constitutional issues would get maximum debate and that there would be maximum participation. There has been no sign of the Government honouring that commitment.
Another colleague who has returned to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), said that his amendment was about the voting rights of service men. He dispelled the excuse for the guillotine that has been peddled by the Government, that the amendments are frivolous trivia. That argument is indefensible in the light of my hon. Friend's speech.
The Secretary of State for Scotland was reduced to saying that the Bill will not alter the constitution, but will simply try to pave the way for doing that. Is not the way in which we conduct referendums part of our constitution? Are the rules, procedures and arrangements for them not an important part of our constitutional arrangements? Precedents from 1977 and 1978 were quoted. Do not they remind us that every referendum shapes our unwritten constitution? Labour Members propose endless referendums without any thought for their consequences on the constitution. The holding of a referendum in advance of legislation is in itself a regrettable change in constitutional practice.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Bill was a modest measure which could easily be guillotined. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) who reminded us that two weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman said that the measure was of great importance. Now it has become modest, and we are told that we need not worry too much about debate on it being curtailed. If the measure is so modest, why will the Committee stage be taken in the Chamber? The Government cannot have it both ways, but the right hon. Gentleman spoke about a modest measure as if the Government were asking for permission to hold an opinion poll. He said that it was modest because it was short, but not everything that is short is modest, otherwise there would be much more modesty in the Chamber.
The Bill raises fundamental questions about our constitution and about the use of referendums. It also raises important questions about whether people should be presented with proposals that have not been subjected to detailed scrutiny; about what happens when Parliament is told that such scrutiny is unnecessary because a referendum has been carried; about who should vote in

referendums; and about whether the question in a referendum should be specific or the kind of vague generality that the Government want to put to the people.

Mr. Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hague: No, because I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
The Bill raises important questions about whether there should be agreed procedures for the conduct and financing of referendums. However, there are to be short debates or no debates at all on all those issues.
In opening the debate for the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said that the first duty of Parliament was to debate legislation. He reminded us that when Michael Foot guillotined devolution Bills in the 1970s, he did it after 30 days of debate. His complaint was that hon. Members had already spoken too much. One of the complaints of Labour Members now is that not enough Opposition Members have spoken in the debates so far on these matters.
There is no precedent that Labour Members would like to look at in detail for the action that they propose. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe showed that the guillotine is not simply about limiting debate, but about denying it. The effect of the motion will be that the referendum procedures, the possibility of asking the people of Wales about tax-raising powers, the financing of the campaigns and the issue of a majority threshold cannot be debated. Are those trivial and esoteric questions which can easily be cast aside? Are they not worthy of being debated for at least an hour or of a single comment by the Government? Do they not deserve cursory examination by the mother of Parliaments?
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised the Gary McAllister question. I suspect that that will join the West Lothian and Bury North questions and become part of our political language. The hon. Gentleman asked questions that Ministers have not answered and propose to skate over.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) took issue with the assertion that the merits of a guillotine could be determined by the number of hon. Members who were present on Second Reading. At the end of Second Reading there were still some hon. Members waiting to take part, and among them was my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. He reminded us that if the Government were truly intent on modernising our procedures, they would do it with the interests of hon. Members in mind rather than solely the interests of the Government. He said that it is the duty of the Leader of the House to stand up for its rights and to strike a balance between the Government's wish to get its business through and the need for Parliament to give that business proper scrutiny.
The behaviour of the Leader of the House on this matter has been a disgrace. After she had made her statement yesterday evening, she scuttled out of the House while points of order about it were still being raised. She has not managed to scuttle back in to hear the winding-up speeches. Within a month of taking on her responsibilities, she has been bullied into surrendering rights of the House by the Secretaries of State for Scotland


and for Wales. I have never seen the Secretary of State for Scotland as a bully and I am disappointed in him. However, we all know that the Secretary of State for Wales is a bully and the right hon. Lady should have seen him coming. She should have known that she would have to resist such attacks when she took on her responsibilities.
If the Leader of the House believes in a timetable, why was one not offered to the Opposition? If she desires the orderly passage of business with adequate debate, why did she not discuss the terms of the timetable with the Opposition? The excuses that the right hon. Lady gave last night were pathetic. She said:
It is a simple, straightforward Bill with only six clauses.
If it is so simple and straightforward, how come Ministers have not yet managed to answer most of the simple, straightforward questions about it? [Interruption.] Here she is; now she can deal with some of these herself. She said about the Bill:
The Government also have a clear mandate for it."—[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 123.]
However, what she forgot and what she is paid to remember is that hon. Members all have a mandate to scrutinise legislation and to ensure that it receives proper debate. Does she not realise that the confidence of the House in a Minister, above all the Leader of the House, is not automatic but has to be earned? She has done nothing to earn it in the way in which she has abdicated her responsibilities in this matter.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) pointed to some of the dangerous language used by Ministers on this subject: the Secretary of State for Wales had said that he would brook no interference in dealing with these matters; and the Prime Minister had said that it would be game playing not to legislate with all possible speed on the matter. The language that the Government have used is deeply unappealing to people who believe in open debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) reminded us that sensible timetabling is one thing, but draconian timetabling is another. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills(Mr. Shepherd) spoke powerfully of the inappropriateness of guillotining a Bill that may have lasting consequences for the Union of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) reminded us that the only reason why the Government are in a rush to hold referendums and to secure the Bill is that they fear the consequences of sustained debate about the detailed proposals that they have yet to produce for the benefit of this Parliament and of the people of this country.
What that adds up to is a growing streak of arrogance in the Government's behaviour. What seemed like carelessness in the first few days they were in office has turned into a habit of overweening arrogance. We saw it with the decision about the Bank of England, which was made without even consulting the Cabinet, in the changes to Prime Minister's Question Time to try to turn it into a weekly yawn, in the changes to questions to other Departments, as was raised at points of order earlier today, and in the huge increase in political and personal appointments by Ministers. Now we see it in the cavalier

use of the power to guillotine. It adds up to the arrogant abuse of power. The Government may enjoy it for the moment, but they will certainly regret it in the end.
That arrogance is all the more disturbing when accompanied by Ministers being unable or unwilling to answer clear questions about the implications of the legislation that they have brought to the House. How many of the questions that we asked on Second Reading are still unanswered? A great many. How many will still be unanswered when we finish these curtailed debates in Committee? A great many. The Government have not begun to answer the questions about how devolved systems of government would work. They cannot even answer satisfactorily how the voters in a referendum can assess their answers.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham reminded us, the Prime Minister said that the Bill would be published for people to examine before the referendums were held. Now it has been turned into the White Paper. Are we not to believe what the Prime Minister says in the House? The Government are not able to say how extensive, informative or conclusive that information will be. They are not able to answer the most basic and fundamental questions about their proposal.
We believe that it is right to hold referendums on these proposals, but we believe that the Bill entails holding referendums at the wrong time and in the wrong way, and that it asks voters to approve proposals that are unclear or may be changed afterwards, with the House of Commons being told that it must pass the measure without a fuss because a referendum has approved it.
The use of a referendum to gain a general mandate rather than approval for specific proposals is the use of a referendum as an anti-parliamentary device. Our protest is that the Government are coupling the misuse of one constitutional innovation with the abuse of another. They are bringing about one procedure unsuited to parliamentary democracy by employing another. No wonder so few Government Back Benchers have had either the courage to oppose nor the confidence to voice support for the measure. In the end, they will be the losers, but it is a pity for all concerned that the functioning of the House is the loser in the meantime.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Despite the last comments of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, I am sure that there is a general understanding in the House that the Government are proceeding in the correct way. [Interruption.] I think that there is. I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for the support that the Liberal Democrats have given to the Government on this matter, and the Scottish National party for its somewhat qualified support for the proposition. I also know that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who represents Plaid Cymru, is well disposed to the motion.
It is a sad reflection on the state of the Conservative party that it has learned nothing in the past month. It was comprehensively defeated at the general election a month ago and was wiped out in Scotland and Wales. All it is doing is resolutely refusing to recognise that, on the central issue of the way in which Scotland and Wales are governed, it was wrong and is wrong. The Conservative party resolutely clings to the status quo when that status quo is totally discredited.
I remind the shadow Secretary of State of the time when he was Secretary of State for Wales. There are powerful currents running towards democratic government in both Scotland and Wales. The people of Scotland and Wales want to give expression to their national aspirations and to decide their own local priorities in public services. People in Scotland and Wales, and no doubt in the regions of England, wish to find out how best they can develop their own regional economies.
I remind the shadow Secretary of State that there are some Conservatives, certainly some in Wales—the more progressive of them—who do understand the need to modernise our constitution. Let me draw his attention to the remarks of his colleague, the former right hon. Member for Conwy, Sir Wyn Roberts. I take this opportunity to pay my personal tribute to him. He was a witty, dedicated and patriotic Welshman who served his constituency with great distinction. He is the longest-serving Welsh Office Minister we have ever had and, within weeks of leaving that office and leaving government, he recognised that it was time, and that there was a need, to rethink policy on devolution.
That brings me to Sir Wyn's successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), whom I particularly welcome. She treated us to a marvellous maiden speech. It was passionate and articulate. I know of her love for her new constituency and share her admiration for the beauty of her part of Wales. She spoke eloquently of her native language and our shared culture, and I welcome her determination to democratise our government in Wales. She will be a staunch ally in the referendum campaign that will shortly come.
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that there need not necessarily have been a guillotine motion before the House this evening. The Bill that is the subject of the guillotine is, of course, a short Bill. It contains six straightforward clauses and two schedules, but, somehow or other, within the space of a few days, that short Bill has attracted 250 amendments, 21 new clauses and 12 new schedules.
Those amendments, new clauses and new schedules were designed not to improve the Bill, but to wreck any chances of an orderly and considered debate. I think that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was absolutely right when he accused Opposition Members of overkill. Let me refer the House to new clause 8, which I am sure was not tabled to improve debate. It says:
Nothing in this Act shall derogate from—

(a) the Union with Scotland Act 1706, The Union with Scotland (Amendment) Act 1707, The Succession to the Crown Act 1707, The Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711 or The Demise of the Crown Acts 1702 to 1901 or any Act of Parliament affecting the Crown;
(b) The Wales Act 1535;
(c) The Act of Settlement 1700."

Is the shadow Secretary of State for Wales or the shadow Home Secretary telling us that that new clause is tabled to bring about an orderly, logical and rational debate on the proposition before us? I do not believe that it is.

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I am sorry, but time does not allow.
I must ask the House what the Government are supposed to do under those circumstances. The Government are doing precisely what the shadow Secretary of State for Wales and his party would do were they still in government. The choice is quite simple and there should be no misunderstanding. Either the Government would have had to allow a completely uncontrolled filibuster, which would have implications for not only this piece of legislation but all the Government's legislative programme, or they had to act now to ensure a proper timetable for a rational debate and time for all the key issues to be debated.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Davies: I listened patiently to both the hon. Members and I want to reply to some of the important points that have been made.

Mr. Jenkin: There is never enough time, is there?

Mr. Davies: No, unfortunately there is not, but we do have a guillotine motion before us.
The Opposition know that their indignation on this matter is entirely synthetic. I shall remind them of the views of Michael Portillo when he was speaking from the Dispatch Box:
It is known in the House that the reality is a choice between many hours in Committee characterised by filibuster and slow progress, and a number of hours in Committee in which we make reasonable progress."— [Official Report, 12 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 1046.]
The timetable motion will allow the House to have an ordered, rational and sensible debate. It will provide for four key debates. I know that many hon. Members have raised the issue of the franchise. When the timetable motion is accepted, there will be an opportunity for a calm, rational and brief debate on the franchise.

Mr. Cash: Brief.

Mr. Davies: Of course the debate will be brief. The Government accept that the alternative is to allow the Conservative party to reduce the proceedings in the House to a degenerate rabble. That is the Conservative party's intention, but the Government will not allow that to happen.
There will be a further opportunity for a debate on the second Scottish question. I understand the position of many of those in the Scottish Liberal Democrat party and the Scottish National party who do not share the Government's view that there should be a second question dealing with tax-raising powers. When the timetable motion is accepted, there will be an opportunity for that debate, so that hon. Members can put their case and a Division can take place.
If and when—[Interruption.] The issue of thresholds has been raised from a sedentary position. That issue has been raised in various amendments and Madam Speaker has been responsible for the selection. If the debates on the franchise are brief and the House reaches an early conclusion, there will be an opportunity for a further debate on those matters. It is entirely in the hands


of Opposition Members. If they wish to use the time available to debate the franchise at length, there will not be time for a debate on thresholds.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I have only a few minutes left and I must finish this point.
The Government's view is clear. We believe that there is no room in the referendum for the artificial introduction of the sort of thresholds that have been mentioned.

Mr. Hague: The right hon. Gentleman said that there will be plenty of time to debate the franchise and the second Scottish question and that there will also be time to debate lots of other things. He cannot hold both those views simultaneously. The guillotine means that there cannot be a debate on the procedures of the referendum, on the arguments about thresholds or on whether the people of Wales should be asked about tax-raising powers. Does he think that that is right?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru will allow for a referendum with a range of options. It will provide the multi-choice option. If that amendment is successful, that multi-choice option will be put before the people of Wales. It will presumably include the sort of Parliament that they wish to see, with a range of legislative powers and, presumably, with tax-raising powers. It is precisely so that we can move to a rational debate on those issues that the Government have tabled the timetable motion.
The motion will allow four main debates. There will be one on the franchise, one on the second Scottish question, one on the multi-choice option for Wales and one on the multi-choice option for Scotland.
I want to reply to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), which is why I did not give way to him. He suggested that there was a choice and that, had there been an offer from the Opposition's business managers, the Government should have accepted it, to ensure that there was no need for a guillotine. The Government would have co-operated with the Opposition if there had been a reasonable prospect of coming to an agreement. It was made clear by the Conservative party's representatives that no guarantees could be given.
The Government have been quite reasonable in allowing two days on the Floor of the House for a debate in Committee on this brief Bill. If the Opposition are not prepared to guarantee that the business will be concluded within those two days, the Government have no option but to proceed with the motion.
The Government have to accept their responsibility to the House of Commons to ensure an orderly debate. During its time in office from 1979, the Conservative party introduced 61 guillotines. There are many precedents for this pre-Committee stage guillotine. This is the first big test of the Conservative party in opposition and it has failed. It has failed to come to terms with its election defeat and failed to understand the consequences of being wiped out in Scotland and Wales. 
The Government are determined to modernise the British constitution, and devolution is part of that process. This timetable motion will ensure that the people of Scotland and Wales are given a chance to have their say in that modernisation process. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 420,Noes 154.

Division No. 8]
[6.36 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Casale, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Cawsey, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Chaytor, David


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Chidgey, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Church, Ms Judith


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clapham, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda


Atherton, Ms Candy
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Austin, John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Baker, Norman
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Bayley, Hugh
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beard, Nigel
Coaker, Vernon


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coffey, Ms Ann


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Cohen, Harry


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Coleman, Iain


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
(Hammersmith & Fulham)


Bennett, Andrew F
Colman, Anthony (Putney)


Benton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Berry, Roger
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Best, Harold
Cooper, Ms Yvette


Betts, Clive
Corbett, Robin


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blears, Ms Hazel
Corston, Ms Jean


Blizzard, Robert
Cotter, Brian


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Cranston, Ross


Borrow, David
Crausby, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradshaw, Ben
Cummings, John


Brake, Thomas
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brand, Dr Peter
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna


Breed, Colin
(Perth)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare


Brown, Rt Hon Nick
Dafis, Cynog


(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Darvill, Keith


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davidson, Ian


Burden, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burnett, John
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Burstow, Paul
Dawson, Hilton


Butler, Christine
Dean, Ms Janet


Byers, Stephen
Denham, John


Cable, Dr Vincent
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Caborn, Richard
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Doran, Frank


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Dowd, Jim


Canavan, Dennis
Drew, David


Cann, Jamie
Drown, Ms Julia






Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)
Hurst, Alan


Edwards, Huw
Hutton, John


Efford, Clive
Iddon, Brian


Ellman, Ms Louise
Illsley, Eric


Ennis, Jeff
Ingram, Adam


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Fatchett, Derek
Jamieson, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)


Fisher, Mark
Johnson, Ms Melanie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Flint, Ms Caroline
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)


Flynn, Paul
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Follett, Ms Barbara
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Jones, Ms Jenny


Foster, Don (Bath)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Foulkes, George
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Galbraith, Sam
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Galloway, George
Keeble, Ms Sally


Gapes, Mike
Keen, Alan (Feltham)


Gardiner, Barry
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Keetch, Paul


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Kemp, Fraser


Gerrard, Neil
Kennedy, Charles


Gibson, Dr Ian
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Khabra, Piara S


Godsiff, Roger
Kidney, David


Goggins, Paul
Kilfoyle, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Kingham, Tessa


Gorrie, Donald
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Graham, Thomas
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Grant, Bernie
Laxton, Bob


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
Lepper, David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Leslie, Christopher


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Levitt, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Grogan, John
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gunnell, John
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Hain, Peter
Linton, Martin


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Livingstone, Ken


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Livsey, Richard


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Uoyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hancock, Mike
Uwyd, Elfyn


Hanson, David
Lock, David


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Love, Andy


Harris, Dr Evan
McAllion, John


Harvey, Nick
McAvoy, Thomas


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McCabe, Stephen


Healey, John
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Heath, David (Somerton)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Hepburn, Stephen
Macdonald, Calum


Heppell, John
McDonnell, John


Hesford, Stephen
McFall, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hill, Keith
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Hinchliffe, David
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hoey, Kate
McLeish, Henry


Home Robertson, John
Maclennan, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
McMaster, Gordon


Hoon, Geoffrey
McNulty, Tony


Hope, Philip
MacShane, Denis


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
McWalter, Tony


Howells, Dr Kim
McWilliam, John


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hughes, Ms Beverley
Mallaber, Ms Judy


(Stretford & Urmston)
Mandelson, Peter


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Marek, Dr John





Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall, David (Shettteston)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Martlew, Eric
Singh, Marsha


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Milburn, Alan
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Moore, Michael
Snape, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moriey, Elliot
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stevenson, George


Mountford, Ms Kali
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mudie, George
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mullin, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stott, Roger


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Norris, Dan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Olner, Bill
Stunell, Andrew


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Opik, Lembit
Swinney, John


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Osborne, Mrs Sandra
(Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Matthew


Pickthall, Colin
(Truro & St Austell)


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pollard, Kerry
Timms, Stephen


Pond, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Pound, Stephen
Todd, Mark


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Touhig, Don


Primarolo, Dawn
Truswell, Paul


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Radice, Giles
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rammell, Bill
Tyler, Paul


Rapson, Syd
Vaz, Keith


Raynsford, Nick
Vis, Dr Rudi


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wallace, James


Rogers, Allan
Walley, Ms Joan


Rooker, Jeff
Ward, Ms Claire


Rooney, Terry
Wareing, Robert N


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Watts, David


Rowlands, Ted
Webb, Steven


Roy, Frank
Welsh, Andrew


Ruane, Chris
White, Brian


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wigley, Dafydd


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ryan, Ms Joan
(Swansea W)


Salmond, Alex
Williams, Dr Alan W


Sanders, Adrian
(E Carmarthen)


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sawford, Phil
Willis, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Wills, Michael


Shaw, Jonathan
Wilson, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)






Wood, Mike
Wyatt, Derek


Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Greg Pope.


Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)





NOES


Amess, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Arbuthnot, James
Hunter, Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Baldry, Tony
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bercow, John
Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Key, Robert


Blunt, Crispin
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Boswell, Tim
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brady, Graham
Lansley, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burns, Simon
Lidington, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cash, William
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
Luff, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
McIntosh, Miss Anne


(Rushcliffe)
MacKay, Andrew


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Collins, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Madel, Sir David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Major, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
Malins, Humfrey


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maples, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Mates, Michael


Davies, Quentin
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


(Grantham & Stamford)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Day, Stephen
May, Mrs Theresa


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Merchant, Piers


Duncan, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Duncan Smith, Iain
Nicholls, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Flight, Howard
Prior, David


Forth, Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robathan, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fraser, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gale, Roger
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Garnier, Edward
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gibb, Nick
Ruffley, David


Gill, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Sayeed, Jonathan


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gray, James
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Green, Damian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Grieve, Dominic
Soames, Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spring, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hawkins, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Hayes, John
Streeter, Gary


Heald, Oliver
Swayne, Desmond


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Syms, Robert


(Old Bexley & Sidcup)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Horam, John
Temple—Morris, Peter





Thompson, William
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Wilshire, David


Tyrie, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Viggers, Peter
Woodward, Shaun


Walter, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waterson, Nigel



Whitney, Sir Raymond
Tellers for the Noes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Peter Ainsworth and 


Wddecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill:—

Committee

1.—(1) Proceedings in Committee shall be completed at the sittings this day and tomorrow.

(2) At the sitting this day, proceedings on any amendments to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would amend that Clause at any place before the word 'Scotland' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Seven o'clock.

(3) At the sitting this day, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would leave out the word 'Scotland' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in its place,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Eight o'clock.

(4) At the sitting tomorrow, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would leave out the words 'and tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament' at lines 6 and 7 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in their place,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Four o'clock.

(5) At the sitting tomorrow, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would leave out only the words 'tax-varying powers' at line 6 of page 1 of the Bill and insert other words in their place,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Six o'clock.

(6) At the sitting tomorrow, the remaining proceedings on Clause 1 and proceedings on any amendments to Clause 2—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would amend the Bill at any place before the word 'propositions' at line 7 of page 2 of the Bill,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at a quarter past Six o'clock.

(7) At the sitting tomorrow, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 2—

(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would leave out the word 'propositions' at line 7 of page 2 of the Bill,

shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Eight o'clock.

(8) At the sitting tomorrow, the remaining proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Eight o'clock.

(9) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Report and Third Reading

2. The proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting tomorrow and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Conclusion of proceedings

3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive Clauses and Schedules, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those Clauses and Schedules.

(3) If at the sitting tomorrow

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, and
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time,

the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings at that sitting in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion;

and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to remaining proceedings that day on the Bill then being considered.

Order of proceedings

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.

Dilatory motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

6. The following business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour—

(a) proceedings under paragraph 3(1) or (2);
(b) proceedings to which paragraph 3(3) applies;
(c) proceedings under paragraph 8(1).

Business Committee

7. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Supplemental orders

8. —(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) If at the sitting this day or tomorrow the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1 or 2, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Recommittal

9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Orders of the Day — Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

REFERENDUM IN SCOTLAND

Mr. William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, line 6, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 140, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'the persons' and insert 'those United Kingdom citizens'
No. 4, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'persons' and insert
'citizens of the United Kingdom'.
No. 120, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
'were born in Scotland or who have a parent or grand-parent of Scottish birth and who would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election if they were resident in Scotland and the persons who'.
No. 148, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
'are included in a central register to be established in accordance with Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Scotland)] or who'.
No. 82, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'local government' and insert 'general'.
No. 238, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'local government' and insert 'parliamentary'.
No. 5, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 83, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'and the citizens of the United Kingdom who would be entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom, who were born in Scotland.'.
No. 149, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'except that citizens of the European Union who are not also British citizens shall not be entitled to vote.'.
No. 225, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'who have been registered as local government electors in any Scottish local government register for the past five years or since they were 18, whichever be the shorter period'.
No. 236, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'or have been entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Scotland in the previous twenty years'.
No. 121, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
'() Notwithstanding subsection (3) above, an Order in Council under this section may make or enable the Secretary of State to make special provision with respect to persons, or any description of persons, who are members of the forces (as defined in section 46 of the Representation of the People Act 1949) or spouses of such

members, and may do so differently with respect to different cases; and any provision so made—

(a) may permit persons to whom it applies to vote in a referendum notwithstanding that they are not duly registered under the Representation of the People Acts, and, if they have or have had an address in Scotland, notwithstanding that the conditions of those Acts as to residence are not satisfied; and
(b) may enable persons to whom it applies to vote at a date earlier than that appointed under subsection (1) of this section and may also enable them to vote at a polling station set up in accordance with that provision or by post.'.
No. 138, in page 1, leave out from beginning of line 14 to end of line 3 on page 2.
No. 7, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'for Scotland'.
No. 213, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 151, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'local government area' and insert 'parliamentary constituency.'
No. 9, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'Scotland', and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 152, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'shall himself act as Counting Officer for electors registered in the central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Scotland)] and shall also set up and maintain that register.'.
No. 13, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 191, in page 2, line 3, at end add
'and for each Parliamentary constituency publicly at the end of each count.'.
No. 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 141, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'the persons' and insert 'those United Kingdom citizens'
No. 17, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'persons' and insert
'citizens of the United Kingdom'.
No. 160, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
'are included in a central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Wales)] or who'.
No. 18, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'at' to end of line 12 and insert
'a local government election in any electoral area in the United Kingdom'.
No. 239, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'at' to 'in' in line 12 and insert 'a parliamentary election'.
No. 84, in page 2, line 11, leave out
'an election for a county council or county borough council'
and insert 'a general election'.
No. 217, in page 2, line 12, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 85, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
'and those citizens of the United Kingdom who would be entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom, who were born in Wales.'.
No. 161, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
'except that citizens of the European Union who are not also British citizens shall not be entitled to vote.'.
No. 226, in page 2, line 12, at end insert


'who have been registered as local government electors on any Welsh local government register for the past five years or since they were 18, whichever be the shorter period'.
No. 237, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
'or have been entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Wales in the previous twenty years'.
No. 139, in page 2, leave out lines 13 to 25.
No. 218, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 21, in page 2, line 16, leave out
'county or county borough in Wales'
and insert
'local government area in the United Kingdom'.
No. 165, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'county or county borough' and insert 'parliamentary constituency'.
No. 219, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 164, in page 2, line 16, at end insert
'and shall himself act as Counting Officer for electors registered in the central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Wales)] and shall also set up and maintain that register.'.
No. 25, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 28, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out
'county or county borough in Wales'
and insert
'local government area in the United Kingdom'.
New clause 11—Counting—

'—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Chief Counting Officer for the United Kingdom.
(2) The Chief Counting Officer shall appoint a Counting Officer for each local government area in the United Kingdom.
(3) Each Counting Officer shall—

(a) conduct the counting of votes in the area for which he is appointed in accordance with any directions given by the Chief Counting Officer, and
(b) certify the number of ballot papers counted by him and the number of votes cast for each proposition.

(4) The Chief Counting Officer shall certify the total of—

(a) the ballot papers counted, and
(b) the votes cast for each proposition
for the whole of the United Kingdom.'


Amendment No. 132, in schedule 1, page 4, line 2, leave out 'IN SCOTLAND'.
Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 5, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
Amendment No. 35, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
Amendment No. 133, in schedule 2, page 5, line 2, leave out 'IN WALES'.
Amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
New schedule 2—Central register of electors for referendums (Scotland)—
A central register of electors shall be set up and maintained for electors only eligible to vote in the referendums. It shall be open to any person in the following categories to be included in that register up to thirty days before the date of any referendum.

Such persons may vote by post, by proxy or in person at polling stations provided specifically for the purpose in such centres as the counting officers deem necessary. Persons eligible to be included on the central register are:

(i) persons who are resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland but who could claim a vote in Scotland by reason of their previous residence there were they living outside the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts;
(ii) persons who, under the provisions of the Immigration Acts could claim British citizenship by descent where that claim derives from a father or mother whose place of birth, naturalisation or residence is in Scotland;
(iii) persons born in Scotland but living elsewhere in the United Kingdom;
(iv) persons not born in Scotland but who have lived in Scotland for more than ten years and now live elsewhere in the United Kingdom and who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Scotland to live permanently;
(v) persons owning residential property in Scotland but not being on a local government electoral register who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Scotland to live permanently.'.
New schedule 3—Central register of electors for referendums (Wales)—
A central register of electors shall be set up and maintained for electors only eligible to vote in the referendums. It shall be open to any person in the following categories to be included in that register up to thirty days before the date of any referendum.
Such persons may vote by post, by proxy or in person at polling stations provided specifically for the purpose in such centres as the counting officers deem necessary. Persons eligible to be included on the central register are:

(i) persons who are resident in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland but who could claim a vote in Wales by reason of their previous residence there were they living outside the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts;
(ii) persons who, under the provisions of the Immigration Acts could claim British citizenship by descent where that claim derives from a father or mother whose place of birth, naturalisation or residence is in Wales;
(iii) persons born in Wales but living elsewhere in the United Kingdom;
(iv) persons not born in Wales but who have lived in Wales for more than ten years and now live elsewhere in the United Kingdom and who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Wales to live permanently;
(v) persons owning residential property in Wales but not being on a local government electoral register who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Wales to live permanently.'.

Amendment No. 37, in title, line 1, leave out 'in Scotland'.
Amendment No. 38, in line 3, leave out 'in Wales'.

Mr. Cash: We are debating a first-class but a third-rate constitutional Bill which is being treated in an unprecedented manner; and we have been debating not so much a guillotine motion as a lethal injection.
The Leader of the House said that it was not a constitutional Bill—a statement which should in itself disqualify her from that office. The Bill is a constitutional Bill—a major constitutional Bill. Moreover, it includes tax-varying powers that go to the very heart of the sovereignty and integrity of Parliament. As hon. Members


have already said, debate on previous constitutional Bills has lasted for as long as 30 days, whereas we will be given as few as one or two days to debate this measure.
We are debating a Bill which has been conceived in a cuckoo's nest of a Cabinet that is controlled by a Scots cabal of Ministers of the Crown, representing the biggest takeover of the United Kingdom since the Union, in 1603, of the Crowns of Scotland and England. A quarter of all Ministers are Scots—19 of the 89 Ministers are Scots. I mentioned a Scots cabal, and I should explain that I define "cabal" as something representing conceit, arrogance, bombast, aggression and lies.
The plain fact is that the Bill represents the views that were expressed by the Prime Minister in the general election campaign and in the Labour party manifesto. However, his euphoria will be dashed—as was that of the Stuarts, in 1649, when Charles I lost his head because of his folly and his arrogance. It is worth remembering that, in its title, the Bill is a successor to the 1979 devolution legislation, which led to the fall of the Callaghan Government. It has been well said that, eventually, they shall reap as they have sown.
The Bill is a part of a policy that is inside out and upside down, with principles on the outside and precedents on the downside. It is an outrage that the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill precedes the White Paper and the devolution Bill itself, and it is a deceit to say that it stands on its own. Even in 1975, Harold Wilson insisted on a White Paper before introducing legislation on a European referendum.
As I said to the Secretary of State for Scotland—although my remarks apply to Wales as much as to Scotland—on Second Reading, the Bill necessarily involves not so much the West Lothian question as the United Kingdom question.
Referendums should not be confined to Scotland and Wales; they should encompass the United Kingdom as a whole. Given the Bill's tax-varying proposals, the electors of my constituency and all those of the United Kingdom, including those of England and Northern Ireland, are involved. That will be the case whether taxes are increased, decreased or varied. The Government promised that any tax-varying powers would be defined and limited, but that is not what the Bill or, indeed, the question on the ballot paper says. The question on the ballot paper is therefore a cruel fraud perpetrated on the voters.
7 pm
A further point of great concern to many Opposition Members relates to the United Kingdom. Our manifesto and all the utterances of the former Prime Minister put the issue of the Union, let alone the European Union, at the very heart of our campaign. I cannot understand why the shadow Cabinet has not decided to have a formal Whip on my amendment to clause 1, which would extend the referendum franchise to the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. That would be entirely consistent with our manifesto and the policy of the former Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. James Wallace: If it is now the official policy of the hon. Gentleman's party that the franchise should be extended to the electorate of the UK

as a whole, is it also its policy that any settlement in Northern Ireland would be submitted to a referendum of the UK as a whole?

Mr. Cash: Speaking as a Back Bencher, there is every reason why any referendum involving the dismembering of the United Kingdom should be referred to the United Kingdom as a whole. That has the merit of logic and common sense. I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions, but with the encouraging proviso that Back Benchers are free to vote, according to the Whips, for my amendment if they so wish.

Sir Robert Smith: In 1979, did the Conservative party take the same stance and say that the referendum should have involved the UK as a whole?

Mr. Cash: I am delighted to be able to say that we are always making progress. I must add that the impact of a Bill of this importance, with its tax-varying powers, puts it in the category of the first constitutional status which I would regard as not dissimilar to the European referendum of 1975, which was dealt with by the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. Hon. Members should consider these important points affecting the United Kingdom question.
As I said, in 1975 there was a clear recognition that what was then the Referendum Bill, which was of similar importance to the internal domestic interests of the United Kingdom as this Bill is now, affected the United Kingdom as a whole. There was a national counting procedure because many Scots live and work in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland. There are those who live in Scotland who qualify for a vote but who come from other parts of the world. The Bill is riddled with inconsistencies, injustice and contradictions.
Why, but for the draconian discipline imposed by the Prime Minister on his Members of Parliament, is there no resistance among Labour Members from the north-east and north-west as there was in 1977 and 1979 and who, under the terms of the Bill, will be profoundly damaged by the establishment of a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers? It would, in any event, damage the rest of the United Kingdom, and Scottish Members of Parliament would lose most of their moral authority in the Westminster Parliament.
There are at present 72 Scottish Members of Parliament. Some 30 years ago, the Kilbrandon commission on the constitution recommended that the number should be reduced and, indeed, one of my amendments proposes that it should be reduced to 45, which is, appropriately, the same number as when the Act of Union 1706 was passed. Furthermore, the Bill leaves in limbo the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which, given his remarks today, is no doubt what he deserves. It is essential that it is clearly reaffirmed, just as the sovereignty of the United Kingdom should also be reaffirmed in the Bill.
I noticed the Secretary of State for Wales making light of the fact that amendments had been tabled to preserve the Crown and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Anyone who thinks that the Bill does not go to the heart of the future of the United Kingdom should not be sitting in this House as a Minister. We should repudiate any


possibility of the Bill being a trojan horse for reducing the component parts of the United Kingdom to provinces within the European Union and reaffirm the direct accountability, whether in Scotland or Wales, of Ministers of the Crown exclusively to the United Kingdom Parliament. These matters are all part and parcel of the United Kingdom question.
It is inconceivable that we can proceed with a Bill of this kind when it contains arrangements that are so vague that it is impossible for us to know what the role of the Secretary of State would be and the extent to which Ministers of the Crown would be responsible to this Parliament. Would they be responsible to a Scottish Parliament? What would be those Ministers' functions? The Bill leaves so many questions unanswered and puts the House in an impossible situation.
The amendments propose a solution to the problems that I have outlined and, indeed, to the West Lothian question. There is an answer to it, although it may not be very congenial to Scottish Members. I suggest that when matters arise in this Parliament that affect only those parts of the UK other than Scotland, Scottish Members of Parliament shall, by Standing Orders of the United Kingdom Parliament, speak but not vote.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: That is highly unrealistic. The hon. Gentleman must know that the Treasury has a relationship with spending Departments. One can imagine what would happen if the spending Departments were in the hands of one party and the Treasury in the hands of another—it is absolutely unreal.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but that is not the case, and for this very good reason. The West Lothian question, which is often attributed to him, but which, as he has generously acknowledged, was posed by Mr. Enoch Powell, goes to the very heart of the dismembering of the United Kingdom and, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out repeatedly in his distinguished career, presents the House with the impossible contradictions inherent in the present situation. If the Bill proceeds, and if the hon. Gentleman and other members of his party do not carry forward their opposition to this Bill and the devolution Bill as they did before, we shall face not only the dismembering of the United Kingdom but the question that he has just put to me—and we are going to have to resolve it. It is not enough to say that it is unreal. The situation is real because it has arisen. It has been presented by the Government, not the Opposition.
Let me put it another way: how would Scottish and Welsh Members react—or, more to the point, how would Scottish and Welsh citizens react—if we set up an exclusively English Parliament but with a full complement of English Members who would continue to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters? That is the obverse of what the Bill is dealing with.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, particularly over the past 18 years, when Parliament was dominated by his party, legislation designated solely for Scotland was voted in by English Members, not by Members from the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party,

which were the dominant parties in Scotland? His argument is illogical because legislation was imposed by him and his colleagues.

Mr. Cash: I take it that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that they had no opportunity to speak or vote. They may have been outvoted—

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman said speak and not vote.

Mr. Cash: I said speak and not vote in the new circumstances. My answer to the West Lothian question, which I pose as the United Kingdom question, is that after the creation of a Scottish Parliament, it would be reasonable for us to propose changing our Standing Orders so that Scottish Members would be entitled to speak and not vote in the circumstances that I have described.

Mrs. Ewing: No problem.

Mr. Cash: I am delighted that the hon. Lady says that that is no problem, because it helps to relieve some of the difficulties inherent in the question posed so diligently in the past by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am certain that the Scottish and Welsh people would not want the situation to continue if we held pole position in the United Kingdom Parliament and they were constantly affected by our decisions.
Refurbishment has not been mentioned so far. The issue is tucked away in a subtle and devious fashion in one of the last clauses in this wretched Bill. It says that we in this Parliament are expected to pay for the refurbishment of the buildings to be set up for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, even before the passage of the Bill on devolution or the publication of the White Paper—which definitely should precede that Bill, with the referendum coming afterwards. That is outrageous. It is equally disgraceful that we are not being allowed to debate this Bill properly, but the discussion on that has now taken place.
As I have said, within the past 30 years, the Kilbrandon commission suggested that Scotland should have fewer Members. We should also give proper consideration to the threshold for the majority if there is to be an effective referendum. I dare say that other hon. Members will want to refer to that, so I shall not enlarge on it. I simply point out in conclusion that I have suggested a figure of one third in my amendments because I should like to know the Foreign Secretary's reaction, given that he proposed that in 1978–79. I should be happy with a threshold of 50 or 60 per cent., but as we are dealing with a Labour Government with a vast majority—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for displaying his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Given the probability of the Bill becoming an Act, does he intend to campaign actively in the referendum campaigns? If so, where will he devote his energies—in Scotland or in Wales?

Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting question. I shall certainly campaign. I shall be in England, but I am near enough to Wales to be able to go there from time to time.
The Bill is an outrage. It has been introduced outrageously and should be rejected, but I should like as many hon. Members as possible to consider my amendments and vote for them.

Mr. Dalyell: Because of the time constraints, I should like to ask just one succinct but practical and urgent question that goes back to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) in the previous debate. It is particularly relevant to the forces vote, but also to other bona fide Scots working in Europe or in England.
7.15 pm
During the recess, I had the privilege of being asked by my national service regiment, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, to spend time with them on their operational duties in Bosnia. I can put the problem best by asking the same question that I was asked there. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards are based at Fallingbostel in Germany, but many of them are registered at Catterick, Winchester or other military bases. Many of them regard themselves as fully fledged Scots, just as Scottish as any Scottish Members of Parliament. They asked, "Are we going to have our say in the referendum?" What is the Government's thinking on that?

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has asked a difficult question. I am glad that he has asked it of his Front Bench rather than us.
I have a simple point to make. It is beyond dispute that the creation of a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales is of interest to the entire United Kingdom, affecting the whole country. The United Kingdom is a unique constitutional entity, created from four parts, bound together by a single sovereign Parliament. Combined with our unwritten constitution, that has created an unusual entity that, nevertheless, works well in practice.
Anything that threatens to alter one part of the Union is of concern to all. That was recognised at the creation of the Union. Two separate sovereign Parliaments came together in 1707 to create a new Parliament for Great Britain, which was itself a new constitutional entity. It follows that any measure that affects that constitutional entity, such as the creation of a new Scottish Parliament, is a matter for all the citizens of Great Britain, now joined by Northern Ireland.
Annual Government expenditure in Scotland is over £800 per head greater than the figure for the whole United Kingdom. In Wales, the gap between what is raised locally in taxation and what is spent there by the Government is even larger. Both Scotland and Wales have a large fiscal deficit. That is a matter of considerable controversy. My constituency looks over the Bristol channel to Wales. Many of the grants and subsidies that Wales gets transfer jobs from my side of the Bristol channel to Wales. The matter is controversial, but it is a price that many English people feel is worth paying for a successful Union.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify exactly what he is referring to? Is he referring to identifiable public expenditure per capita? What is the £800 figure?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the annual publications produced by the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. One is called "Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland", the other "Government Expenditure and Revenues in Wales". The most recent figures I have are for 1994–95. From those publications I get a figure per head in Scotland of £839 more than for the United Kingdom as a whole. For Wales, the figure is less, but the other side of the equation—the revenue side—is much less, so the fiscal gap between revenue and expenditure is even wider for Wales than it is for Scotland. There is absolutely no doubt about it. From the figures available to all hon. Members, it is clear that both countries run large fiscal deficits which are made up by subsidies chiefly from the English taxpayer.
I personally am willing to accept some of that deficit as a price worth paying for a successful Union. What I do not accept is that, in addition to the large fiscal transfers, it is now proposed that there should be a Parliament for Scotland and an Assembly for Wales which will, of course, be used to attract even more money, powers and privileges to those parts of the United Kingdom at the expense of the English counties.
The Bill provides a small but significant example of what I am talking about. Let us look at who will pay for the costs of the referendum and for the preparatory work involved in setting up the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales. Clause 5 makes it clear that the money will come from the Consolidated Fund. In other words, it is overwhelmingly—again—the English taxpayer who will pay for all of this while having no say at all in the outcome and no vote in the proposed referendums.
I will take another well-known example—the over-representation of Scotland and Wales in this House compared with what those two parts of the United Kingdom would be entitled to on a strictly pro rata population basis. I accept that there is a case for allowing the extremities of any country some over-representation to make allowances for the sparsity of population and for the difficulties of communication and travel, but that does not apply to the very small constituencies in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.
If the proposals go through and if the referendums proceed as planned by the Government, in addition to that over-representation, Scotland and Wales will have their own Parliament and Assembly. The extra Westminster Members will continue to come to this Parliament. They will have nothing to do in their own constituencies because all the powers that they presently have over matters such as health and education will have been transferred to the local Parliament and the local Assembly. They will, however, apparently continue to come to this Parliament in the same numbers in order to interfere in matters that apply to England, and to my constituents in particular.
The two examples I have given—the subsidies that flow to Wales and Scotland and the parliamentary over-representation—make one simple point.
The referendums and their outcome are not matters simply for Scotland and Wales; they are of crucial interest and importance for the entire United Kingdom. I support amendment No. 2 because it would insist that the questions posed in the proposed referendums should be available to all the citizens of the United Kingdom and not simply those in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. John McAllion: It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the speeches we are hearing from Conservative Members are basically anti-Scottish. All the talk of Scotland being over-represented, of fiscal transfers and of the English taxpayer paying for the services provided for the people of Scotland is, frankly, racist. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) introduced the debate in an offensive manner. It is offensive to have the ability of Cabinet members questioned on the basis of their ethnic origin. If the hon. Gentleman does not find that offensive, he should not be in this place, which is meant to be the mother of Parliaments and the home of democracy. There would have been demonstrations in the streets against such racist talk from any Member of Parliament in the 1930s. It is a disgrace and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
Some hon. Members have spoken of the extension of the franchise to the rest of the United Kingdom, which is covered by this group of amendments. Most of the United Kingdom is already included in the franchise; everyone in Scotland and Wales will get the vote. During the general election, the English knew very well that that would be the case. The hon. Member for Stone said that in the general election, the Conservative party put preservation of the Union at the very heart of its campaign. I remind him not only that the Conservatives were wiped out in Scotland and in Wales, but that they did not do very well in England either. Some 61 per cent. of English voters voted for either the Labour party or for the Liberal Democrats, both of which made it clear that referendums would be held only in Scotland and in Wales. We have a mandate from the English people and we speak for the English people, unlike Conservative Members who try to build a case on that basis.

Mr. Edward Garnier: On the basis of the argument that the hon. Gentleman appears to be putting forward at the moment, I assume that he would not expect any Labour Government supported by Members of Parliament from Scotland, England or Wales to have any say on matters affecting Northern Ireland.

Mr. McAllion: I never interfere in Northern Ireland's affairs; I have learnt that it is wise not to do that. I suggest that hon. Members who do not know much about Northern Ireland should not raise the matter of Northern Ireland casually. There is a very sensitive situation there and we should not blunder into it or make false analogies. It is typical, however, of Conservative Members to do that.
The proposals that will be in the White Paper, and then in the Bills that introduce the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, will change the government of Scotland and of Wales. They will not change the government of England. As far as I know, England will continue to be governed as it has always been governed—by this place. I look forward to the day when the English come to their senses and say that it is time that they had an English

Parliament. Many Conservative Members continually assume that this is an English Parliament with wee bits of Scotland and Wales added on. We are a big inconvenience. We cause debates, we cause trouble and we take taxpayers' money. That is the tenor of debate from Tory Members.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am confused about why the hon. Gentleman supports the Bill as he resigned from the Labour Front Bench when it was announced in London that the Scottish Labour party would have to put up with the idea of a referendum. Why does he now support the Bill?

Mr. McAllion: It is quite simple. The Scottish Labour party subsequently endorsed the decision to hold a referendum and the Scottish voters then endorsed that decision at the general election. As a good democrat, I recognise when I am beaten and I accept that decision. I wish that Conservative Members would recognise when they are beaten in Scotland and that they would accept that there will be a Scottish Parliament because the Scottish people want one.
Amendment No. 120 causes me some concern. It deals with people who were born in Scotland but no longer live there, and suggests that they should be allowed to take part in the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has, as usual, come up with a very appropriate name for it: he calls it the Gary McAllister-Paul Lambert amendment. For Conservative Members from England who do not recognise those names, they are Scottish internationals. One plays in Leeds, other in Dortmund. They have made their choice to leave Scotland and to seek fame and fortune elsewhere. They earn big money for living outside Scotland. If that is their decision, one of the penalties they have to pay is that they cannot vote in elections in Scotland. That is an important distinction. Whoever you are, if you choose to leave your country, you choose to leave the democracy in that country.
7.30 pm
I am worried about the ethnic nature of some of the amendments, as if where someone was born, or where their father and grandfather come from, qualified them for the franchise. We have only one franchise in Scotland—if someone lives in Scotland, they have the franchise no matter what their ethnic origin or which country they came from. That is the only franchise we recognise. The speech by one hon. Gentleman earlier caused me great concern. He was very passionate—I do not know his constituency so I cannot refer to him—and he had an almost mystical faith in the Union, which we frequently hear from Opposition Members. He used words and phrases such as consanguinity, marriage and the blood that ties us together. He stopped short of saying kith and kin, but that is what he meant. That is the language that the Tories used to use about the empire and the other parts of the world that England used to control. The Tories still think in those terms about Scotland and Wales, but those days are over. The fact that they have not recognised that those days are over is why they were wiped out electorally in Scotland and Wales. Democracy is changing. Power has been decentralised and the Bill is part of that process. It will strengthen the links between Scotland and England, not worsen them.
Amendment No. 120 would extend the franchise to those whose grandparents were born in Scotland. On a similar basis, I could take part in the election in the Republic of Ireland next Sunday because my grandparents were Irish. That shows what nonsense the suggestion is. I should not take part in an election in another country that has nothing to do with me now.

Mr. Garnier: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that, under the Irish constitution, he would not be allowed to take part in next Sunday's election?

Mr. McAllion: I have just said that. I said that if the amendment applied in the Republic of Ireland, I would be able to take part. It is right that I should not be allowed to take part in the election; and nobody who lives in America, Germany, France or anywhere else in the world who has a grandfather or grandmother who happened to be born in Scotland should be allowed to take part in the referendum. That is not a qualification for the franchise.
A later amendment—I think it is amendment No. 149—would exclude citizens of the European Union from the referendum. Under amendment No. 120, a Scot who lives in the Republic of Ireland could take part in the referendum, but under amendment No. 149 he would be disqualified as a citizen of a member country of the European Union. That is nonsense.
As for the Tories' threshold argument, the only reason to introduce thresholds into a referendum is to ensure that the referendum does not succeed. That is what happened in 1978. The people who introduced and supported the threshold did not want a Scottish Assembly. That was the last throw of the dice to stop it happening; it was not about democracy but about blocking the creation of a Scottish Parliament—and it is the same today.

Mr. Cash: What about the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. McAllion: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was a very bad man in 1978, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. I have no truck with their position then. I opposed them then and if they did it again I would oppose them again. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has learned his lesson. He was wrong in 1978 and we in Scotland have paid a heavy price because we did not have a Parliament in the past 18 years to protect us from the policies of the hon. Member for Stone and his colleagues. Do not tell me that any Tory is interested in democracy in Scotland or in the Scottish people. The Tories rammed the poll tax down the throats of the Scottish people a whole year before they introduced it in any other part of the United Kingdom. There was no referendum then. Nobody asked whether the Scottish voters should be given the franchise.
The Tories reorganised local government in Scotland. People in Dundee are still suffering because of the butchery of Scottish local government by the last Tory Government. There was no referendum on that. Local authorities in Scotland had to organise a referendum to stop water privatisation, like that in England and Wales, happening in Scotland. The Labour local authorities organised that referendum, not the Tory Government. We are not fooled by Opposition Members who say that they

are worried about parliamentary democracy or the sovereignty of the people. They worry only about their skins and about power being devolved across the United Kingdom. A different political structure will make them into what they really are—a bunch of dinosaurs.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I wish to address the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in support of amendment No. 2. I am surprised that he, a member of a party that used to be called a unionist party, should favour a measure that would sow, if it were carried, the seeds of great disunity in the United Kingdom. If I understand amendment No. 2 aright, it would extend the referendum to England.

Mr. Cash: To the United Kingdom.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop making comments from a seated position. He should know better.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has worked it out, but if the referendum were to be held throughout the United Kingdom and a different result were marked up in England—I say that advisedly—from that registered in Scotland, he would have created a revolutionary situation. He would certainly do so if he sought to translate such a result into a justification for the failure of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to implement the clear and settled will of the Scottish people to have a Parliament.
The argument of the hon. Member for Stone has a second leg. He is not satisfied that the House of Commons can adequately determine the issues that would flow from a positive vote in the referendum. As the hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that is never slow to emphasise the sovereignty of Parliament—a view that distinguishes it from my party, because we believe that sovereignty rests with the people—it is strange that he should think that Parliament is not capable of deciding the issue. Of course, the outcome of a referendum in Scotland will have an impact on the United Kingdom as a whole. Our fates are linked and our constitutional arrangements should take account of a decision to establish a Scottish Parliament. Clearly, some of the questions that have been raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) must be addressed at some point.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: That is the nub of the question. At what point will the anxieties of, or the knock-on effects on, the people in England be addressed? According to the way in which the proposals have been made, those anxieties and effects will be brushed under the carpet and ignored. Those of us who believe in the Union and want it to survive are concerned that devolution will lead to an explosive situation. We want to prevent that. Those issues should be addressed now, in this debate—if not on the amendments before us, then on some others.

Mr. Maclennan: Those issues have been addressed and have been in order; otherwise the amendments to which the arguments were tied would not have been selected. They have not been ruled out of order and I do


not suppose that they will be. The question is what weight they should be given, not whether they are in order. I submit that we should not attach great weight to those arguments now in determining whether to establish the machinery to hold a referendum to put beyond peradventure the view of the Scottish people on whether they want a Scottish Parliament along lines that will be set out in a White Paper to be published before the House rises for the summer recess. It seems that that is a relatively limited question.
When substantive legislation implementing the will of the Scottish people as expressed in a referendum is brought forward, I grant that there will come a time for considering whether it is right that the House of Commons should remain constituted as it is and whether Scottish membership of the House should in some way be reduced, and by how much. It would also be right to consider whether the Scots would have not only the right to speak, but to vote not only on United Kingdom matters but on matters affecting parts of England for which they do not have direct responsibility or responsibilities which are discharged, as far as Scotland is concerned, in the new Scottish Parliament.
All such matters are certainly appropriate for debate and certainly ought to be debated, but I question their relevance to the Bill. I question whether it makes sense to invite the English—again, I say that advisedly—or those living in Northern Ireland to contribute their views on whether the Scots have a settled mind on wishing to have a Scottish Parliament.
I do not doubt that the English and those living in Northern Ireland have views, but my guess is that, if the English were consulted separately in, as it were, a separate constituency, they would most likely agree that, if the Scots wanted a Parliament, they should have it. There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence that Conservative Members of Parliament who have addressed meetings in England on this subject have encountered that answer from English audiences. I do not think that that need delay us.

Mr. Dalyell: Who does the hon. Gentleman think ought to pay for the Scottish Parliament—the Scots alone or the United Kingdom taxpayer?

Mr. Maclennan: That is an interesting question, which I will be happy to discuss when we consider the system and the scheme, either in the debate on the White Paper or the debate on the substantive legislation. I do not, however, believe that it is in the least germane to the issue before us.
My party is by no means in favour of the referendum, but the facts are clear. The referendum is a Government commitment. They put it before the Scottish people and had it underwritten and endorsed, and it is simply unreal not to recognise that. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether we are right in assuming that the mind of the Scottish people is settled. The referendum will give us the chance to put that question beyond any further argument. The issue is quite simple, and most of the amendments are a distraction from the central question about machinery and enabling us to put the question quite beyond doubt, which is at the heart of the Bill.
I understand the arguments for holding referendums in other ways. I remember the debates that we had in 1978 about post-legislative referendums. All those matters will

no doubt be discussed again in future, but tonight we have a relatively simple question before us. I do not think that in opposing amendments such as that tabled by the hon. Member for Stone, extending the question to other members of the United Kingdom, we are in any way denying that what would be done in Scotland would have its impact on others in the United Kingdom—of course it would. People had an opportunity to register that fact in a general election, and overwhelmingly supported parties that were committed to the course that the Government are now following. No doubt they will have further opportunities to express their views.
Let the hon. Member for Stone and his hon. Friends recognise that they lost the argument. Let them recognise that they will have a further opportunity to return to the issues at the right time. They will be listened to with respect in so far as they are not seeking to destroy the wish of the Scottish people.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I shall speak specifically to amendments Nos. 120 and 121, which are in my name. I should make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that, if he wishes to test the opinion of the Committee on the wider issue of the United Kingdom franchise, I shall certainly be in the Lobby with him. It is, however, the nature of the grouping of the amendments that if that first and more sensible amendment to leave out "Scotland" and insert "United Kingdom" were to fall, we would then be driven to consider a more narrow extension of franchise along the lines proposed in amendments Nos. 120 and 121.
Amendment No. 120 deals with what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has christened the Gary McAllister question. I would prefer to call it the Rob Wainwright question. I find it hard to understand why someone who is able to play rugby for Scotland should not be able to vote in a referendum on Scotland's future. The amendment therefore extends the franchise, should it not be extended to the whole of the UK, to those Scots who are not currently resident in Scotland.
There is a precedent, and it was considered by the previous Labour Government during the passage of the Referendum Bill authorising a referendum on the European Community. Lord Glenamara, then Lord President of the Council, suggested a number of conditions on which franchise might be extended. They were not being on the electoral register, having the right of abode, having resided at some time in the United Kingdom—in this case that would be in Scotland—being in occupation, service or employment abroad—not simply having retired to live elsewhere but being occupied or serving Scotland or the United Kingdom abroad—and having declared some intention to return, which was what he called
a vital assurance of continuing connection with this country".—[Official Report, 22 April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 1344.]
In the end, the scheme was not proceeded with, although Lord Glenamara made it clear to the House that it would be so possible to extend the franchise.
I hope that the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution will address himself to the concern expressed in amendment No. 120. A great number of Scots—some


of them indeed serving the state—will not be able to vote in the referendum, yet it would be perfectly possible, were the Government so minded, to allow them to do so.

Mr. Wallace: On the basis of the link between taxation and representation, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the event of a Scottish Parliament having tax-varying powers, such people should also be subject to tax? Does not that underline the huge anomaly and nonsense of what he is proposing?

Mr. Fallon: No, it does not, because the referendum is a one-off decision. We have been told that constantly. It is a constitutional decision, setting up quite different constitutional arrangements. That is indeed why a referendum is proposed to decide it.

Mr. Dalyell: Lord Glenamara—Ted Short as he then was—who was the most candid and straightforward of men, really did believe that it was practical and sensible to extend the franchise.

Mr. Fallon: That is what the Hansard reports of the relevant debates make clear. It was perfectly practical and sensible and, even though time was short, the Government of the day actively considered it. Why should Scots living outside Scotland be disenfranchised on this major constitutional issue?
Amendment No. 121 deals with service men serving abroad. I believe that it, too, has the support of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The Government in 1975 acted on the issue and introduced a special clause specifically allowing those service men who were not on the electoral register to vote in the European referendum. They accepted the argument because service men at that point in the year—the spring of 1975—could not have known the previous October that a referendum was to be held, since the proposal was not made until January 1975.
The same argument applies today. Those who might well have wished to make special arrangements to register their vote would have done so had they known last October that this special constitutional vote was coming up. The Government have always recognised that special arrangements need to be made for the service vote, and I do not see why it is not possible to make such arrangements in this case. There are many service men who would otherwise, perhaps, be stationed in Scotland and be able to vote there, but who are serving their country at very short notice in far-flung places. Their service should be recognised with some special arrangement.

Sir Robert Smith: The register that would be used for a referendum is the one that was compiled from a census last October, and people deciding whether to register then would have been deciding whether to enfranchise themselves for the United Kingdom general election. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people who had chosen not to register for that general election would be missing out on the referendum vote?

Mr. Fallon: What I am suggesting to the Committee is that people could not have known last October that they

had to be on the register then to qualify for a referendum that they did not know would be conducted this September. That is the point. It is only fair, particularly for service men, that we recognise that point, and I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to think again about how Scottish service men are able to vote in the referendum.

Mr. Peter Luff: I assure the Committee that amendments Nos. 83 to 85 are serious amendments intended to address the anomaly identified by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in his interventions earlier in the debate. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 relate to the enfranchisement of Scots living outside Scotland, and amendments Nos. 84 and 85 relate to Welsh men and women living outside Wales.
The amendments are, in a way, slimmed-down versions of new schedule 2, which was tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues, and of amendment No. 120, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and others. They represent a serious attempt to solve a serious problem that has been brought to my attention by Scots men and women in my constituency who want to be able to vote in the referendum.
I am disappointed by the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who introduced an unnecessarily confrontational note into a debate on a serious problem that is of concern to Scots men and women living outside their native country.
The problem is complex, and yet rather simple. The Government of the day used the general election register in the 1978 referendums, but the present Government intend to use the local government register this time, thus allowing temporary European Union residents, including English men and women living in Scotland or Wales, the right to vote in referendums on the future of those countries, but denies a vote to Scots and Welsh people, temporarily absent from their countries—whether just across the border in England, or overseas serving their country in whatever capacity—who would be able to register as overseas voters for a general election.
I want not to attack the Scots, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East suggested that Conservative Members were seeking to do, but to defend the rights of Scots men and women living in my constituency. The Worcester Evening News, perhaps a trifle flippantly, summarised the situation as the Government intending to give a Greek waiter temporarily working in a backstreet cafe in Edinburgh the right to vote in an election about Scotland's future, but denying it to a Scottish journalist working here in Westminster for The Scotsman. That is an extreme version of a real anomaly.

Mr. Salmond: I am not sure which journalist from The Scotsman the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and whether he is absolutely convinced that that journalist does not have a residence in Scotland. Is he incapable of understanding why I, as leader of the Scottish National party, am perfectly comfortable with the idea of people from England, Wales, France, the rest of Europe, or Timbuktu, who are resident in Scotland and contribute to the community there, voting on the future of the country? Is he totally incapable of understanding why residents who contribute to a community should have rights of determination, regardless of where they are from?

Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I wish that we could have a serious debate on


the matter. It is a shame that the guillotine makes that difficult to do. There are two separate issues: whether we should give temporary residents in Scotland from other European countries the right to vote in the referendum; and whether we should give Scots people temporarily absent from their country that same right.
I think that the questions hang together and that there is an injustice in denying that right to a Scots person who is temporarily absent while granting it to a person who is there for only a short period and has no interest whatever in the long-term future of the country. That is my view, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) disagrees, but the two questions are separate and should both be addressed at greater length than is the case in this scandalously truncated debate.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Why should the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—the Earl of Ancram—for example, have a vote on Scotland's future, when he deserted his native land to seek his fortune with the Tory party south of the border?

Mr. Luff: I will leave my right hon. Friend the Earl to speak for himself, and I am sure that he will do so most eloquently. I am concerned about the points raised by my constituents—Scots men and women, born in Scotland, most of whom intend to return to Scotland later in their lives—who feel that they are being denied their right to express a view about their birthright. I do not know how they would vote—for all I know, they could be the most ardent pro-devolutionists—but that is not the point. It is an outrage to deny them their birthright.
I find it surprising that Labour Members are laughing at that important point. They are laughing at Scots men and women who are seeking to exercise their right to have a say in their country's future. I find myself in the strange position, as an individual who opposes the legislation and the concept of devolution, at least on the basis proposed at present, of defending Scots people's rights in the face of the Government's hostility. I find that surprising. I am sorry that Labour Members are scoffing, because I intended to make a serious point and I would like a serious response.

Mr. John Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by temporary residents? I met the mother of an old friend, who was born in Glasgow in 1910 and moved to Oxford in 1936. If she now moved back, should she have the right to vote?

Mr. Luff: My experience of Scots men and women living outside their country, whether in England or elsewhere, is that they have a deep sentimental attachment to Scotland that is often more powerful, I am ashamed to say, than that of English men and women to England.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Luff: No. I want those on the Front Benches to have time to wind up, and I am taking too long over these remarks.
Why are the Government insisting on using the local government register? My suspicion is that they are seeking to exclude overseas visitors who are eligible to vote in parliamentary elections and will probably be able

to vote in the elections for a Scottish Parliament. I do not understand why, and I urge the Government to think again about the rights and wrongs of that issue.
There is a strong test of residence in law. In 1970, in the Fox v. Stirk case, Lord Denning gave the following judgment:
a person may properly be said to be 'resident' in a place when his stay there has a considerable degree of permanence".
I would say that the Scots men and women in Worcestershire who are temporarily absent from their homes, and Scots people working overseas for IBM, for the Government, or whatever, have a more "considerable degree of permanence" about their attachment to Scotland than the people whom the Government intend to enfranchise in the referendum.
I urge the Government to take the issue seriously. There is a real sense of grievance among Scots men and women—and, I suspect, among Welsh men and women, too—about the way in which the Government are approaching the measure. I plead with them not to deny Scots men and women their birthright to have a say in their country's future, when they are giving a say to people who have no interest in the future of Scotland.
It is a great shame that the Report stage will come so quickly after the Committee stage, because that will not give the Government time to table amendments to address the issue. However, I hope that they will do so in another place.

8 pm

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I shall be brief. In response to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), I can say that we all agree that if the proposals are to proceed, they should do so on the basis of the consent, the "settled will", of the Scottish people. However, the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to me to convey the message, "Let's just ask the question, and not confuse the voters with the facts." Unless we address all the questions and issues now, that is what will happen.
I have great sympathy with amendment No. 2, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), because it emphasises a simple point—that the Union of Scotland and England is a voluntary union of two parts. We would not expect one member of a club to be able unilaterally to change the rules of the club, to the detriment of the other members. Yet that is what is being proposed.
It is fine for Scotland to have its own Parliament, but it is quite another matter for Scotland to have its own Parliament while remaining a member of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the complexity of those arrangements are not dealt with by confining the franchise to the local government register.
It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to call the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) a racist for raising what he calls the Gary McAllister question. There is also the converse of that question, which we might call the Terry Butcher question. The idea that an English football player playing for Glasgow Rangers would have a vote on the future of Scotland, although Gary McAllister would not—

Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not, because I want to be brief.


To describe those arguments as racist ill-becomes the debate, and may reflect more on the sentiments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East about the English than on anything else.
I wish to talk in particular about amendments Nos. 238 and 239, which I tabled, which propose to extend the franchise at least to the parliamentary rather than the local government register. I shall finish with a plea, to which I hope those on the Government Front Bench are listening.
My constituency surrounds Colchester, and living in that town are the Royal Scots, the finest and the oldest infantry regiment in the British Army—all Scots, to a man. The Royal Scots recently came down to Colchester from Fort George, and they have a deep loyalty to their country. Why can they not have a vote on the future of that country? Will the Minister confirm that his proposal means that those men will not have a vote on the future of the country for which they are prepared to fight and die? That makes nonsense of the Bill.

Mr. Garnier: I shall be extremely brief, and speak only to my amendments Nos. 140 and 141, which relate to clause 1, subsections (2) and (3), and deal with the franchise. I want the Bill to be changed so as to read:
Those entitled to vote in the referendum shall be those United Kingdom citizens who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Scotland.
That makes a slightly narrower point than that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). I seek to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that the Bill would allow European Union citizens to vote in Scotland and Wales, while not allowing equal rights to the other interested citizens throughout the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, the arrangements in the Bill conflict with what appears to be the law in other European Union countries. We do not have equivalent rights in other European countries. For example, under the Irish constitution, only citizens of Ireland can vote in referendums in Ireland. In France, only French citizens, and in Denmark, only Danish citizens, can vote in referendums under the constitutions of those countries. The same applies in Sweden, Spain, Norway and Italy, and there is an equivalent procedure in Belgium.
Why on earth are we allowing European Union citizens to vote in Scotland and Wales on the future of the United Kingdom, when the other European countries do not allow us the same rights in their referendums on constitutional matters? That seems wholly illogical.

Mr. Michael Howard: The amendments deal with one of the most serious flaws in the Bill—the arbitrary restrictions and limitations on the franchise. I think that it is common ground that the question that needs to be addressed with regard to the referendum is how it is properly and effectively to establish, in the late John Smith's phrase, the "settled will" of the Scottish people and the Welsh people?
We therefore need answers from the Minister to the many questions that have been asked about the arbitrary definitions proposed in the Bill. Earlier today, we started with the question asked by the hon. Member for

Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—the Gary McAllister question. That is a serious question, which cannot be brushed aside by some of the rather contemptuous observations that have been made by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members.
Indeed, that question has been reinforced by some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who said that it was the reverse side of the Terry Butcher question. Behind it lies the real difficulty encountered by those who happen temporarily to be resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom, who are to be given no voice on a matter that touches not only on the government of Scotland and Wales but on the administration of the whole of the United Kingdom.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland moved Second Reading—he was here a moment ago and he may return—he treated the House to a little joke about peppery Scotsmen in Kuala Lumpur who still take an interest in the old country. I do not share his hilarity. Scotland and Wales have never been inward-looking nations, and the world has been enriched by the talent and energy of Scotsmen who have carried their work abroad. The Secretary of State may find them figures of fun, but I think that most of his constituents would take considerable pride in those people's achievements.
The amendments that we are discussing concern not peppery old chaps in Kuala Lumpur, however, but the rights of Scots and Welsh men and women living and working in our own country. The epitome of that point was put by my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks and for North Essex, and it was set out clearly in amendment No. 121, which deals with those who are temporarily away from their homes in Scotland because they are serving in Her Majesty's armed forces. The Labour party likes to present its devolution proposals as patriotic, but I cannot begin to see any genuine patriotism in disfranchising those Scottish and Welsh soldiers who form some of the finest regiments in the British army.
Yet without any reciprocity, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has pointed out, the Bill denies a say to many natives of Wales and Scotland, while giving a say to citizens of the European Union who happen to be residing temporarily in those countries. So in some cases there will be a vote for people born in Athens but not in Arbroath, a vote for people born in Samos but not in Stornaway, and a vote for those born in Grasse but not, alas, in Gorseinon. Many questions spring from those propositions and call for answers.
Why is the franchise to be determined by entitlement to vote in local government elections? Why should it not be entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections? What is the reasoning behind that? What considerations led the Government to that view? Why not establish a central register of electors for the precise purpose of establishing those who are to participate in the decision that will be taken as establishing the settled will of the people of Scotland?
Why not have provisions to make obtaining the vote impossible for people newly arrived in Scotland who are only temporarily resident? Such people may have arrived only a couple of weeks before the due date but fulfil the qualifications and may be entitled to vote. Why not have a time limit? Why not say that the person concerned must


have been resident in Scotland or Wales for a period of three or six months so that they have a legitimate locus standi for taking part in the decision?

Mr. Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend is delicately tripping around the amendments. I have been driven to notice that he has not referred to the lead amendment. What does he think about the proposal to extend the franchise to the whole of the United Kingdom? If he is not minded to vote for it, why not?

Mr. Howard: I know my hon. Friend far too well to think that I could get away without addressing his question. I promise that I shall come to it before I sit down.
I have asked some of the questions to which I hope that we shall get serious answers from the Minister before we are subjected to the arbitrary fall of the guillotine. It is a reflection of the mischief of the guillotine procedure that we have not been able to examine such serious questions in detail. We should have been able in Committee to canvass in detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of a franchise based on local government elections or parliamentary elections or a central register. There are serious arguments for and, no doubt, against each of those options. If the Government had not been so heavy-handed, we would have been able to address those questions fully and effectively and so come to a conclusion that would have enabled the outcome of the referendum to be seen much more genuinely, properly and effectively as establishing the settled will of the people of Scotland.
I hope that the Minister will deal specifically with amendment No. 121, which the Opposition Front-Bench team would certainly have supported had it come to a vote. I do not know whether the question to which it gives rise will go down in history as the Sevenoaks question, the Bosnian question or, indeed, the North Essex question, but it is important and deserves a comprehensive answer.
I have much sympathy with the thought that caused my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to move amendment No. 2. I understand why he moved it and why I imagine that he will press it to a Division. We have given some consideration to the matter and do not think it right at this stage to support it. That does not mean that the proposals do not have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom which may warrant wider consideration in due course.
We have yet to see whether the Government will provide any sort of answer to the West Lothian question, or whether they will begin to address the over-representation of constituencies in Scotland. We have no idea whether the Government will take seriously the financial implications of their proposals, not least the question that will arise in due course of what would happen to the contribution made by the rest of the United Kingdom to the financing of services in Scotland if, however unlikely it may be, a Scottish Parliament decided to use its tax-varying powers to reduce the burden of taxation on the people of Scotland. Those fundamental questions go to the heart of the legislation. If satisfactory answers are not provided, we may well have to revisit the question whether those who reside in other parts of United Kingdom should have a say on the outcome of the proposals.
For the moment, we await the answers that I hope that we will get from the Minister on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and to the other important and legitimate questions raised by my Friends in this all-too-brief debate. If the Government's proposals are to acquire real legitimacy—which must be their objective, and we do not seek to challenge it—they must provide convincing answers. I look forward to hearing what answers the Minister will provide.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I am delighted to respond to the debate and will certainly take up the challenge put forward by some Conservative Members on important issues. I am struck by the fact that we spent three hours on a previous motion on timetabling discussing our inability to have a debate. We have had 10 speeches, including some excellent contributions that were concisely put. Perhaps it is an exemplar of the way in which the House should conduct itself in other matters, and in respect of the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Luff: rose—

Mr. McLeish: I shall not give way at this stage. As always, I shall allow interventions later.
I am impressed by the fragile fraternity that exists among Conservative Members in respect of their coherent approach to the submission of amendments. That is a problem for the Opposition, not for Her Majesty's Government. In passing, I am sure that Labour Members and other hon. Members are a bit sick of being lectured about damaging the Union when this measure is designed to strengthen it. Patriotism is not the preserve of the Opposition when uttered in the way that it has been. All hon. Members take great pride in the House; it is one of the binding qualities that keep us here arguing so coherently.
I have some useful advice for the Opposition. It is only four weeks since the rout, but, at some time, they will have to acknowledge the debate that is taking place in their party in Scotland. That is friendly advice. As has been said, in Wales and Scotland the Tories need some nurturing by the Westminster-based parliamentary party. [Interruption.] It is my style to be helpful to the Opposition. [Interruption.] It is not patronising—it is sound advice which I hope that the Opposition will take.

Mr. Francis Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it appropriate in a debate that has been guillotined for the Minister to make such patronising general observations instead of responding to the questions that he has been asked?

The First Deputy Chairman: I must allow the Minister to make his speech in his own way.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) raised an important issue. Things have moved on since the 1975 referendum. If hon. Members had gone to the Library, they would have found the relevant clause. Service voters can make a service declaration for an


address in the United Kingdom. It may be their home address or another, for example, that of their parents—whatever would be their residence in the UK if they were not serving abroad.
Clearly, it is not possible this evening to specify answers for individuals without knowing personal circumstances. I confirm that service personnel who are resident in Scotland will not lose their votes by virtue of serving abroad. To be helpful, I shall spell out the current position in detail. There is no need for further provisions in the Bill because the facility already exists, and we guarantee that it will be exercised in respect of this referendum.

Mr. Fallon: I am extremely grateful to the Minister of State for what he said. I would wish to study his words. Does he mean that a service man who has been posted from Scotland to Catterick and then from Catterick, as part of the brigade, to serve in Bosnia, will be deprived of his vote because originally he was resident in Catterick?

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I would wish to respond to it specifically. My understanding is that the situation that he has outlined would be covered. We are talking about the residency issue in Scotland in terms of the declaration that would be made by service men and women who are not operating in their employment in Scotland. With the approval of the Committee, that is one of the issues with which I should like to deal specifically, and I certainly will.

Mr. Luff: When? The Minister is on his feet. Deal with the issue now.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised an interesting point on the Gary McAllister question.

Mr. Luff: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish: No, I have made the point.

Mr. Luff: When will you deal with the issue?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way. I ask hon. Members to cease interrupting while the Minister is addressing the Committee.

Mr. McLeish: When Ministers are trying to be helpful I think that some courtesy should be extended to them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. McLeish: No, I am not giving way. I want to deal with the questions that have been asked. On the one hand, Members want answers, but, on the other, they want to continue to filibuster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made an interesting contribution on the so-called Gary McAllister question, a matter with which I wanted to deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised the Paul Lambert and John Collins questions. I can

tell hon. Members, whether it entertains or worries them, that there will be a Paul Gascoigne factor. I am sure that he will have a vote in the referendum if the Bill passes through the House of Commons.
The purpose behind the large group of amendments that is before us is to change eligibility to vote in a variety of ways. Some amendments are designed to allow people who are resident in any part of the United Kingdom to vote in the referendum, while some amendments are designed to change the franchise from local government to parliamentary status. Others are designed to enable people with only a tenuous claim to Scottish or Welsh roots to vote. That procedure is usually reserved for filling football teams. Other amendments have been tabled with a view to requiring a pledge hand on heart for potential Scottish or Welsh residents that they will move to those countries. None of these amendments is acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish: No. I want to make some progress. I shall, however, allow the hon. Gentleman back into the debate later.
The questions whether there should be a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly are primarily for the people in Scotland and Wales as they are most affected by devolution.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Would it be in order for the Minister to write to hon. Members with the details of the answers that he currently does not have time to give us? I am no clearer now than 20 minutes ago whether the Royal Scots in Colchester will get a vote in the referendum.

The First Deputy Chairman: Writing to Members is a matter for the Minister and not one for the Chair.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Cash: It is, Mr. Martin. It happens that I tabled the lead amendment. I have attempted to get the Minister to answer the question that I have posed. It is a convention of the House of Commons that a Minister is expected to deal with the question raised within the terms of the first amendment in the group. The Minister has not responded to it yet.

The First Deputy Chairman: Continual interventions will stop a Minister or any other Member from responding to questions. The Minister will not give way, and that is a Minister's privilege.

Mr. McLeish: My usual style, Mr. Martin, is to give way to interventions. I am trying to balance the fact that only eight minutes are available to me in which I might try to answer some of the questions asked against continual interventions that are of no particular substance.
I have answered the question of service registration. I think that it is sufficient to leave the matter there for the present. I shall be writing to those hon. Members who have raised the issue.
Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 would add to the electorate any person born in Scotland and Wales who is entitled to vote in a general election in any part of the United Kingdom. That would allow someone born of English parents who has lived all his life in England and has no connection with either Scotland or Wales to vote in a referendum because, by chance, he happened to be born in Scotland or Wales. Why should such a person have any more right to vote than, say, a Scot who is now living in England?
Amendments Nos. 148, 152, 160, 164 and new schedules 2 and 3 are attempts to set up a central register of electors for the referendum. That register would allow five additional groups to vote in the referendum. Members might wish to read the new schedules to learn exactly what hon. Members have in mind for their fair franchise. Perhaps those concerned would like to explain just how their fourth and fifth categories of voter would take their so-called oath of allegiance, promising to live permanently in Scotland. Would they have to take the oath standing on the Stone of Destiny? Would squads of Scots police pursue absconders south of the border and drag them, kicking and screaming, back to their hielan' hame? Hon. Members will have to do better than that if they want their amendments and new schedules to be taken seriously.
The key criterion for deciding who should vote, in terms of our proposals, must be residency. Many hon. Members have confirmed today that that is the sensible, logical and effective way in which to proceed. I accept that people in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland and Wales will have a genuine interest. As hon. Members who have promoted the amendments have demonstrated by their own actions, eligibility to vote must depend on more than just interest.
The principle has been well established in previous referendums. For example, in 1973 the people of Northern Ireland voted on the constitutional status of that part of the UK. In 1975, people in all parts of the UK voted on continued membership of the EC. In 1979, the people of Scotland and Wales voted on the devolution plans of the time. On each occasion, the principle of residency was applied.
The Bill has, of course, been debated by the UK Parliament, as will be the Bills to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, subject to the outcomes of the referendums. These debates will provide ample opportunity for the interests of people in all parts of the UK to be taken into account through Members of the House of Commons. That seems to strike the right balance between seeking the consent of those most obviously affected by the proposals and ensuring that the interests of the UK as a whole are taken into account.
As an aside, looking ahead to a possible referendum on Europe, would hon. Members suggest that as the UK's membership has an effect stretching well beyond its borders, citizens of all other member states should be entitled to vote on UK membership?
Those who support amendment No. 121 have raised an important issue. Obviously, we want to ensure that service voters have the right to participate. I have tried to reassure the Committee that that is the case. As a courtesy, I want to explain in detail the current position so that hon. Members are left in no doubt that it is the reality. We shall ensure that it is operational when the referendum takes place.
The current arrangements are apparently working well and it seems important that we should allow them to continue to do so.
Amendment No. 120 would, if accepted, stretch some of the points raised this evening even further. I do not seek to be frivolous in any way, but the amendment could allow someone born in, for example, Bolivia of Bolivian parents, who has never visited Scotland, to vote in the referendum merely because his granny was a Scot. What sort of fairness is that in relation to what we are attempting to do on franchise?
Obviously and understandably, Conservative Members have tried to range wide in our discussions today. However, the substantive Scotland and Wales Bills will come before us later in the Session. It is important to remember that, despite the timetabling motion, we shall have an opportunity to raise at a later stage some of the issues that have been highlighted by Conservative Members this evening. At present, we must remain within the strict terms of the timetable motion if we are to keep in order.

Mr. Cash: The Minister has still not attempted in any way to answer the main question that has been raised this evening. Will he answer a simple question: why are the Government not prepared to extend the franchise under these referendums to the whole of the United Kingdom? Will he answer that simple question?

Mr. McLeish: I have already answered that question. I have said that the issue of the referendums is primarily one for Scottish and Welsh voters. It must be recognised, however, that the House of Commons, in discussing the Bill during its various stages, will have the chance to reflect the views of everyone living in the United Kingdom. It is vital that that is emphasised. It seems that despite attempting to curtail comments on the timetable motion there is the view around that in some way the House of Commons will be deprived of the possibility of looking in depth at the proposals.
I want to go some way to allay the fears of Conservative Members, if they are genuine fears. We intend to publish a substantial White Paper, and there will be a debate in the House. The White Paper will inform the campaign before the referendum takes place. That is vital, because we want Scottish and Welsh voters to know what they are voting on.
The White Paper, informed by the results of the referendums, will form the basis on which we shall develop the Bill. That will give us ample opportunity to ensure that every sector of the United Kingdom is represented through individual Members of Parliament. That is a reassurance, and we intend to make it a reality.

Mr. Garnier: In the final few minutes, will the hon. Gentleman condescend to address amendments Nos. 140 and 141?

Mr. McLeish: I have responded to the franchising issues. We believe that we should resist the amendments.

It being half-past Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 80, Noes 411.

Division No. 9]
[8.30 pm


AYES


Bercow, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Blunt, Crispin
Loughton, Tim


Brady, Graham
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mates, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Merchant, Piers


Butterfill, John
Moss, Malcolm


Cash, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Clappison, James
Paice, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Paterson, Owen


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
Robathan, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Cran, James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Day, Stephen
Ruffley, David


Duncan, Alan
St Aubyn, Nick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Sayeed, Jonathan


Evans, Nigel
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Faber, David
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fabricant, Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fallon, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Flight, Howard
Spring, Richard


Forth, Eric
Swayne, Desmond


Fox, Dr Liam
Syms, Robert


Fraser, Christopher
Tredinnick, David


Gale, Roger
Trend, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Tyrie, Andrew


Gibb, Nick
Walter, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Wardle, Charles


Gray, James
Waterson, Nigel


Grieve, Dominic
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Whittingdale, John


Hammond, Philip
Wilkinson, John


Hawkins, Nick
Willetts, David


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Wilshire, David


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Woodward, Shaun


Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Peter Luff and


Lidington, David
Mr. Christopher Gill.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beirth, Rt Hon A J


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Berry, Roger


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Best, Harold


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blackman, Mrs Liz


Ashton, Joe



Atherton, Ms Candy
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Blizzard, Robert


Austin, John
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Boateng, Paul


Banks, Tony
Borrow, David


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Bayley, Hugh
Bradshaw, Ben


Beard, Nigel
Brand, Dr Peter


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Breed, Colin


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Brinton, Mrs Helen





Brown, Rt Hon Nick
Doran, Frank


(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Drew, David


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Drown, Ms Julia


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burgon, Colin
Edwards, Huw


Burnett, John
Efford, Clive


Burstow, Paul
Ellman, Ms Louise


Butler, Christine
Ennis, Jeff


Byers, Stephen
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Flint, Ms Caroline


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Follett, Ms Barbara


Casale, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Chaytor, David
Foulkes, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Galbraith, Sam


Church, Ms Judith
Galloway, George


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Dr Lynda
George, Andrew (St Ives)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Godsiff, Roger


Clelland, David
Goggins, Paul


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Coaker, Vernon
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gorrie, Donald


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Coleman, Iain
Grant, Bernie


(Hammersmith & Fulham)
Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)


Colman, Anthony (Putney)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Connarty, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grocott, Bruce


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Grogan, John


Corbett, Robin
Gunnell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hain, Peter


Corston, Ms Jean
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cotter, Brian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cousins, Jim
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cranston, Ross
Hancock, Mike


Crausby, David
Hanson, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Harris, Dr Evan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Harvey, Nick


Cummings, John
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Healey, John


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Heath, David (Somerton)


(Perth)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare
Hepburn, Stephen


Dafis, Cynog
Heppell, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hesford, Stephen


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Darvill, Keith
Hill, Keith


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hinchliffe, David


Davidson, Ian
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hoey, Kate


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Home Robertson, John


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Hood, Jimmy


Dawson, Hilton
Hoon, Geoffrey


Dean, Ms Janet
Hope, Philip


Denham, John
Hopkins, Kelvin


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Dismore, Andrew
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dobbin, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hughes, Ms Beverley


Donohoe, Brian H
(Stretford & Urmston)






Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Marek, Dr John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hurst, Alan
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hutton, John
Martlew, Eric


Iddon, Brian
Maxton, John


Illsley, Eric
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Ingram, Adam
Meale, Alan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Michael, Alun


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Jamieson, David
Milburn, Alan


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Miller, Andrew


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Moffatt, Laura


Johnson, Ms Melanie
Moran, Ms Margaret


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Morley, Elliot


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Mountford, Ms Kali


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mudie, George


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Mullin, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Keetch, Paul
Norris, Dan


Kemp, Fraser
Oaten, Mark


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Khabra, Piara S
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Kidney, David
Olner, Bill


Kilfoyle, Peter
O'Neill, Martin


King, Andy (Rugby)
Opik, Lembit


King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kingham, Tessa
Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Kirkwood, Archy
Palmer, Dr Nick


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Perham, Ms Linda


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Pickthall, Colin


Laxton, Bob
Pike, Peter L


Lepper, David
Plaskrtt, James


Leslie, Christopher
Pollard, Kerry


Levitt, Tom
Pond, Chris


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pope, Greg


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Pound, Stephen


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Powell, Sir Raymond


Linton, Martin
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Livingstone, Ken
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Livsey, Richard
Primarolo, Dawn


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Prosser, Gwyn


Llwyd, Elfyn
Purchase, Ken


Lock, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Love, Andy
Quinn, Lawrie


McAllion, John
Rammell, Bill


McAvoy, Thomas
Rapson, Syd


McCabe, Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Rogers, Allan


Macdonald, Calum
Rooker, Jeff


McDonnell, John
Rooney, Terry


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Rowlands, Ted


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Roy, Frank


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Ruane, Chris


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McLeish, Henry
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Maclennan, Robert
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McMaster, Gordon
Ryan, Ms Joan


McNulty, Tony
Salmond, Alex


MacShane, Denis
Salter, Martin


Mactaggart, Fiona
Savidge, Malcolm


McWalter, Tony
Sawford, Phil


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shaw, Jonathan


Mallaber, Ms Judy
Sheerman, Barry


Mandelson, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert





Shipley, Ms Debra
Todd, Mark


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Touhig, Don


Singh, Marsha
Truswell, Paul


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wallace, James


Soley, Clive
Walley, Ms Joan


Southworth, Ms Helen
Ward, Ms Claire


Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Squire, Ms Rachel
Watts, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Webb, Steven


Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Andrew


Stevenson, George
White, Brian


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Whitehead, Alan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stott, Roger
(Swansea W)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Williams, Dr Alan W


Stringer, Graham
(E Carmarthen)


Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stunell, Andrew
Wills, Michael


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wilson, Brian


Swinney, John
Winnick, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


(Dewsbury)
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Matthew
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


(Truro & St Austell)
Wyatt, Derek


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Clive Betts and


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 1, line 6, leave out
'and tax varying powers of a Scottish Parliament'
and insert
'of a Scottish Parliament with tax—raising powers.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 111, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'tax—varying'.
No. 145, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'varying' and insert 'raising'.
No. 112, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'Parliament' and insert 'Assembly'.
No. 88, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'papers' and insert 'paper'.
No. 203, in page 1, line 10, leave out '1' and insert '(Referendum in Scotland (No. 2)).
No. 200, in page 1, line 22, leave out from 'certify' to second 'the'.
No. 89, in page 1, line 22, leave out
'for each of the two forms of ballot paper.'.
No. 90, in page 1, line 25, leave out
'for each of the two forms of ballot paper.'.


No. 92, in schedule 1, page 4, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert
': FORM OF BALLOT PAPER'.
No. 95, in page 4, line 6, after 'Parliament', insert 'with tax—varying powers'.
No. 93, in page 4, line 9, at end insert
'WITH TAX—VARYING POWERS'.
No. 94, in page 4, line 12, at end insert
'WITH TAX-VARYING POWERS'.
No. 76, in page 4, leave out lines 13 to 22.
New schedule 8—Referendum in Scotland (No. 2)—

Part 1

FORM OF FIRST BALLOT PAPER
Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament.
Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box:

I AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT WITH TAX—RAISING POWERS'.

OR

I DO NOT AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT WITH TAX—RAISING POWERS.'.

Mr. Wallace: The amendment would adapt the Scottish referendum. It would no longer involve two separate ballot papers, one asking the electorate whether they agreed with the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament and the other asking whether they agreed that that Parliament should have tax-varying powers. The purpose of the amendment—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.

Mr. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
The amendment seeks to consolidate the two questions into one. The people of Scotland would be asked in a referendum whether they agreed that there should be a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. Obviously, there would be only one ballot paper, but the single question would reflect the content of the two questions that the Government wish to put to the Scottish people.
On Second Reading, I explained why Scottish Liberal Democrats were not persuaded of the need for a referendum in Scotland. We have voiced our opposition to the second question. I have been asked many times by Mr. Kenny McIntyre, Mr. Brian Taylor and Ms Kirsty Wark what I would do about the second question and I have said, "If it comes to it, I shall table an amendment to delete it." I am trying to fulfil that commitment.
The origin of the second question may be linked to the origin of the referendum. It is our perception that Labour was nervous about the taxation issue. I negotiated and worked with Labour in the constitutional convention, and I do not doubt for a minute that the party is persuaded of the merits of a Scottish Parliament with taxation powers. However, it was clear in the run-up to the general election that the word "tax" was slightly frightening the party, and that effect was perceived not least in the Chancellor of

the Exchequer and his Treasury team, and especially in the Minister without Portfolio, who did his utmost in the years leading up to the election to make sure that the word "tax" became neutral.
Labour said during the election campaign that there would be no increase in United Kingdom tax rates during the lifetime of this Parliament. My hon. Friends and I took the view that the strategy of not frightening the natives or the horses with the word "tax" could be undermined if Conservatives pointed north of the border and said, "There is the real Labour party because it proposes to establish a tax-raising Parliament." Labour had to try to neutralise that.
The press floated some ideas of what Labour might do. For example, it said that a Labour Government might incorporate a 75 per cent. voting threshold in a Scottish Parliament for tax powers to be implemented, or that there might be a provision in the Act to allow the taxation powers of the Parliament to be activated only in its second term. Labour came up with a referendum that made specific reference to tax powers so that the party could say to middle England, "Labour is not a taxation party at all. We have even given the Scots the choice about whether they want a Scottish Parliament to have taxation powers."
It has been said that the referendum was foisted on Labour by Islington. That is at least two miles better than the distance from which the Conservatives worked because they foisted things on Scotland from Downing street and Whitehall. The Scottish Labour party executive, which, when it comes to a head count, is a large vocal minority, strongly opposed the referendum and the tax powers. However, when faced with the reality of what it was being asked to do by London, it went one better and had a second referendum agreed with three questions. Under that, the taxation powers of the Scottish Parliament could not have been activated without a further referendum, in which the Parliament would have said, "We are about to use the tax powers. Do you want us to use them?" That is like giving turkeys the power to vote for Christmas.

Mr. Alex Salmond: At one stage, I think that there was a proposal for a third referendum, in which people would have been asked, "Are you absolutely sure?"

Mr. Wallace: That sounds like a Northern Ireland referendum.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Am I right in thinking that the second proposed referendum was described by the Prime Minister, who was at that time the Leader of the Opposition, as the mature and sensible decision of the Scottish executive committee?

Mr. Wallace: I think that I mentioned that on Second Reading. The "mature and sensible decision" that was proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was disposed of seven days later by the now Secretary of State for Defence, who had come to his senses in the meantime.
During the election campaign, there were signs that, notwithstanding the fact that tax powers might be agreed by the Scottish people in a referendum, Labour would still


be reluctant to use them in its first term. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to have second thoughts. We are not dealing with a principle; nor do I think that Labour ever sought to argue the issue on principle. It is a tactic and, to be fair, it has served Labour well. The issue of tax was neutralised and Labour successfully kicked it into touch.
As I said, our single question would refer to the tax-varying powers of the Parliament. I emphasise that, because in the context of our proposals for setting up a Scottish Parliament, we are not afraid of the tax issue. There is no need for us to apologise for the fiscal powers that we and the Government want for that Parliament. Tax establishes the nexus of accountability between those who are elected and those who elect them. People will be elected to the Scottish Parliament to make decisions about political priorities in Scotland, and they must not be allowed to hide behind a shield or to create a scapegoat by saying, "We were not allowed to raise the money for this."
In the general election, we argued for 1p on the standard rate of tax to fund education. The Liberal Democrats did extremely well in the election. We doubled our number, but we did not quite make 331, so we are not able to implement that policy. That is a pity in terms of investment in education. If the Scottish people want to vote to put a party in the Scottish Parliament that will make a greater investment in education, they should be able to do that. If Scotland wants to lead the way, as it often has, not least in education, it should be able to do so. That is why we believe in the importance of the flexibility that taxation powers will confer.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps we could be clear on exactly who is to be taxed. For example, should Scots who spend more than half the year working in England be taxed?

Mr. Wallace: Such issues are important, and I have no doubt that the legislation will address them in detail. I have always understood that there are clear residency rules for taxation in the United Kingdom. By simple analogy and application, the same situation could apply in Scotland. For example, I do not think that Gary McAllister lives for more than half the year in Scotland. There is no question of his not being taxed, even on the bonus that he will receive when Scotland qualifies for next year's World cup finals in France.

Mr. Garnier: Forgive me if I am being a little obtuse, but is it a prerequisite of voting in the truncated or one-question referendum ballot paper that the hon. Gentleman envisages that the voter must be a potential taxpayer, or may non-taxpayers also vote?

Mr. Wallace: Of course non-taxpayers will also vote. The fact that we have tax thresholds means that a number of people do not pay tax because their income, regrettably, is insufficient. They will be eligible to vote, as will people who are on social security and do not pay tax. As you are aware, Mr. Martin, from having sat through a large part of our earlier debate, the referendum franchise will essentially be governed by residency and, unlike that for parliamentary elections, it will include peers and European Union citizens who are in Scotland. Of course, peers and EU citizens resident in Scotland pay tax, but taxation is not the basis of the franchise; nor is it the basis of the franchise for elections to the United Kingdom Parliament.
The point I was making was that taxation powers are critical to the Scottish Parliament, to give it flexibility and accountability. Indeed, the absence of tax powers was identified by Conservatives and others as one of the weaknesses of the Scotland Act 1978. People may recall that, when the Bill was going through another place, Lord Home said that the Scottish Assembly had to have some ability to raise revenue, or we should be "asking for trouble".
Those of us who were involved in the referendum campaign may remember that the great promise to the Scottish people, at the behest of the late Lord Home, was that, if they rejected the proposals, an incoming Conservative Government might offer them something better. Of course, that never materialised. Many of us saw through that ploy at the time, but it is important to remember that the absence of tax powers was seen as a weakness. Many of my hon. Friends who were in Parliament at that time agreed with that, but thought that half a loaf was better than no loaf at all. We would certainly now take the view that tax powers are absolutely essential.
9 pm
The other argument that is put against the tax powers is that having tax rates in Scotland that varied from those in the rest of the United Kingdom would cause substantial problems. Many businesses have come to Scotland. Inward investment in Scotland has been significant over recent months and years, and that is by companies that have known that there was a distinct possibility—indeed that it was increasingly likely—that a Scottish Parliament would be established with tax powers. That has not turned them away. I suspect that fluctuating exchange rates and the pace of technological change and innovation are much more influential in determining investment decisions than the fact that Scotland may have a different tax rate, plus or minus 3p, from the rest of the UK.
Already there are significant differences, even in personal taxation, within Scotland and within the UK. Council taxes vary from local authority to local authority. The siren voices coming from the Conservative party tell us that, because Scotland might conceivably—of course this would happen only if the people of Scotland had voted for it—have a higher tax rate, perhaps by 1p in the pound, people are going to flood out of Scotland and go to work in England. By the same token, because Shetland has the lowest council tax rate in Scotland, I am surprised that there has not been a huge influx of people from all over Scotland, indeed from other parts of the UK, to live in Shetland, not only for the privilege of paying a lower council tax, but for the many other privileges that go with living in Shetland. Clearly, there are a number of reasons why people decide to invest in a particular place.
Because the council tax bands in Scotland are materially different from those in England and Wales, similarly valued houses in Carlisle and in Dumfries can have different council tax rates. Because of the banding, the council tax for a house in Dumfries can be much higher than that for a similarly priced house in Carlisle, yet there is no evidence of a drain of people from Dumfries and Galloway into Cumbria. Because I was born and brought up in those parts, I know that companies recruit from both sides of the Borders, and in recent times


that has never been identified as a problem in terms of recruitment. Therefore, the case for the tax powers is considerable.
As I said, we wish to consolidate the two questions. Why not have the two questions? In many respects, although the Labour Government, perhaps anticipating the next debate, will say that they are against a multi-option referendum, with the two questions, they are offering a variation on the multi-option referendum. We shall have the status quo as one option. Another option will be the scheme proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention—a Scottish Parliament with taxation powers—and the third option will be a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers. The odd thing is that no serious person within the home rule movement in Scotland currently advocates a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers.
I understand that, in a recent interview, the Minister of State said that, if the outcome of the referendum were yes, no, the Government would be prepared to legislate for a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers—indeed, for a Parliament that no one is campaigning for. I have no doubt that the Government's good faith and commitment is to a Scottish Parliament with taxation powers. I am sure that they believe that that is in the best interests of Scotland. However, that raises an interesting question, which I hope that the Minister will answer when he replies to the debate. Why are the Government prepared to contemplate, at least in theory, and prepared to put into practice—they have indicated that they would—legislation that they believe would be less than in Scotland's best interests?
I know that the Conservative party believes that it is not in Scotland's best interest to have a tax-varying Parliament, but I believe that it should have a tax-varying Parliament and I know that that is what the Government believe; we must be concerned that they are prepared to legislate for something less than that. The Government must answer that question.
We are elected to exercise our judgment in the best interests of our constituents and our country. If our judgment is that Scotland should have a Parliament with the full taxation powers proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, we should be wary of trying to legislate for anything less than that.
I fear that if a Parliament does not have taxation powers, that could be the recipe for the break-up of the United Kingdom and for an unstable Parliament. If, for example, the Parliament could not deliver a new hospital in Arbroath or a new school or school refurbishment in Greenock, it would be easy for a Member of the Scottish Parliament to say that there was not enough money, because Westminster would not provide it, and to complain that the Parliament did not have the power to vote any money for itself. That could lead to instability.
Another possible outcome of the multi-choice option is that there could be a no, yes vote. Some people say that they do not want to risk a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers, so they will not provide a blank cheque by voting yes on the first question. However, they may want to ensure that if there is a Parliament, it will have taxation powers, so they will vote yes on the second question. I have heard some Conservative supporters say

that they do not support a Scottish Parliament, but that if there is to be one, it should have the proper accountability that comes with taxation. That would give a no, yes outcome. No one has told us what will happen if we get a no, yes outcome.
Another point of concern to my hon. Friends is that there is the possibility of unstitching a key part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme. I know that that is not what the Government wish, but it is what they are positing as a possibility. During the general election, the present Prime Minister said that even English parish councils have tax powers. Some people took advantage of that and said that he was comparing a Scottish Parliament to an English parish council. I understood him to mean that if an English parish council can have tax powers, a fortiori, a Scottish Parliament should have tax powers. We are being asked to accept the possibility of a Scottish Parliament without tax powers. If it is good enough for an English parish council, it must be good enough for a Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that parish councils in England are not subject to a limitation on the amount of taxation that they can raise within the tax area that they are granted? In fact, if we take the Prime Minister's analogy a little further, it would be appropriate to remove the upper and lower ceiling on the variation of revenue-raising powers which it is now proposed to give to the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Wallace: That was a helpful intervention. I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of English parish councils. I thought that the powers were more limited, but I am interested to hear those points. It strengthens the case. If English parish councils have that degree of flexibility and the accountability that goes with it, it is even more worrying that the Government would be prepared to countenance the possibility of losing the more modest and limited powers proposed for a Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Is not it even more extraordinary that the Government are not even prepared to consider such options for Wales?

Mr. Wallace: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the absence of tax-varying powers from the Welsh proposals. I am sure that some of my Welsh colleagues will wish to make that point.
I want to make it clear that if we were to lose the amendment in a vote tonight, my party would enthusiastically support the campaign for a yes, yes outcome. We want a Scottish Parliament. That has been Liberal policy for the best part of a century and we want it delivered. There is a real expectation in Scotland that, this time, it will be delivered.
I ask the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, the merits of consolidating the two questions. In many respects, that would honour the commitment that the Labour party made in its manifesto, as it would be a question on the Scottish Parliament itself, with the clear highlighting of the fact that that Parliament would have tax-raising powers. By consolidating the questions, we would not run the risk of causing some of the problems that I mentioned.
One reason for the opposition in Scotland to a referendum when the Labour party announced its proposal last June was that people identified it in their minds with


the 1978–79 wrecking tactic, especially the 40 per cent. rule. I do not believe that the Government want to wreck the process. It is clear from what has been said and from the passion with which the Secretary of State put the case this afternoon that that is far from the Government's intention. However, as those who know the history of home rule in Scotland are well aware, there has been many a slip in thinking that a full-blooded Scottish Parliament is in our grasp and then letting it slip away through some fault of our own. We do not want that to happen now.
We believe that by asking the single question that we have proposed, all concerns can be embraced. I have every confidence that we would get an overwhelming yes vote, and then we could get on with the real business of creating Scottish and Welsh Parliaments for the next millennium.

Mr. Ancram: I want to deal with some of the amendments grouped with amendment No. 87, and thereby broaden our debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on his courage. After four weeks of total adulation of the Labour Government, he has at last been brave enough to be mildly critical of their proposals. We hope that it is the forerunner of many other occasions when the new Liberal Democrat party will behave more as a part of the Opposition than as an adjunct to the Government.
The aim of the amendment is to consolidate the proposed two questions into a single question on a single ballot paper. Although I cannot support the wording, which would create something inimical to the Opposition's views, it may avoid certain distortions and anomalies that could arise from having two papers. I understand that some people—I hope that I do not do the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) an injustice in including him—take the view that they might say no to a Scottish Parliament, but that if there were to be one anyway they would wish it to have tax-raising powers. Under the Bill, there could be a no vote on the first question of a simple Scottish Parliament and a yes vote to one with tax-raising powers. If that is a broad response, it could produce the most extraordinarily distorted result. I hope that the Government will consider that point carefully. If they are trying to assess the opinion of the Scottish and, indeed, the Welsh through a referendum, the last thing they want is a result that makes no sense.
I want to broaden the debate because it goes to the heart of one of our objections to the way in which the Bill is framed and is being taken through the House. The Bill attempts to lull the electorates in Scotland and Wales by asking the questions that Ministers think will be the least likely to create fear in the hearts of those electorates and, therefore, the least likely to be rejected.
The achievement of that objective was why we saw such an extraordinary parade of proposals. The Labour party first proposed one referendum, then one referendum with two questions, then two referendums, and then, once again, one referendum with two questions. It was Labour's attempt to present the formula that it believed would create the least offence and fear in the minds of the people of Scotland. Conversely, the Opposition have forcefully argued that a referendum should take place only after all the information is available to the people of Scotland, so that they can make a valid judgment on whether to say yes or no to the proposals.
9.15 pm
The question that is currently proposed is anodyne. It states:
I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament",
but does not even suggest whether a Scottish Parliament will be established as specified in a White Paper or in legislation. The prelude to the questions on the ballot paper, in schedule 1, mentions.
the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament",
but it does not state what those proposals will be or mention a Command Paper. The real questions are left hanging in the air. As I said in a previous speech, a question such as, "I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament", would not even necessarily mean establishing a devolved Parliament within the United Kingdom, because it could mean establishing a Scottish Parliament within an independent Scotland.
The second question states:
I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers".
"Varying" is a wonderful word of comfort. In amendment No. 87, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland included the words "tax-raising", and he was right and honest to do so. Like all hon. Members, he knows that, if we establish a Scottish Parliament and provide it with all sorts of powers to do all sorts of things, it will be looking for the resources with which to do them. If we provide a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, the almost inevitable consequence will be that those tax-raising powers will be used and that the Scottish people will consequently be financially disadvantaged.

Sir Robert Smith: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks would happen to his party's fortunes in an election to a Scottish Parliament. I have contested local elections in which the Conservative candidate has stood on a platform of cutting expenditure and tax. Does he not believe that, in elections to a Scottish Parliament, the people of Scotland might vote for Conservative candidates who stand on such a platform?

Mr. Ancram: If that hypothesis were correct, a very interesting question would arise. As we know, Scotland is financed by a formula block, which is provided by the UK Parliament and Government. If there were to be a tax reduction, we would need to know, before a referendum, whether it would be paid for by the English taxpayer through taxation that is paid into the Scottish block, or deducted from the Scottish block, with a consequent reduction in services for people in Scotland. I do not know the answer to that question, because I am not making the proposals. If there is to be a genuine and valid referendum in which people can make a judgment, that is precisely the type of question that will have to be answered.

Mr. Fallon: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that the Government do not know the answer to that question? This is the first referendum Bill that does not


bear the name of any Treasury Minister—neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has signed it—among its list of supporters. Is that perhaps because, as we read two weeks ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has gone very cool on devolution"?

Mr. Ancram: That is a very interesting question, which we can include on the list of questions that we should like the Minister to answer. Given our experience to date, however, we are unlikely to receive answers to any of those questions. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking his question.
A referendum is being proposed on questions that are so anodyne and so ambiguous that the people of Scotland will not be able to make a valid judgment. They will not, therefore, be able to provide an answer on which we can proceed with confidence.
There are a vast number of unanswered questions, such as that asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about who will pay the tax because, presumably, the rate at which it is set will depend on who pays it? Will a higher tax in Scotland lead to an increase in overheads in Scotland and therefore a loss of competitiveness because people ask for higher wages to make up for the fact that they pay higher taxes? Will that be a disincentive to people working in Scotland? I come originally from the borders where it would not be difficult for people to move across into England to work if they thought they would pay lower taxes. That would greatly disadvantage those who live in the borders and the economy of the area.
We are asked to decide on the Bill and on the referendum but we do not know the details of the proposals. We are told that we shall see the White Paper before the House rises for the summer. We are told that we shall have a debate on it but not how long that debate will be or how detailed the White Paper will be.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution said in the debate on the previous group of amendments that we would be able to consider the proposals in depth. If that is correct, and if the Minister is referring not only to the White Paper but to the proposals in the form of legislation, does it mean that we shall be able to have a debate on the Floor of the House? The Minister went on to say that such a debate would be the opportunity for people from all parts of the United Kingdom, through their elected representatives, to examine the proposals. Is he therefore saying that the proposals will not be sent to a Scottish Standing Committee but that Members from all parts of the United Kingdom will be able to participate in the Committee stage? We need to know the answers. It is not enough for the Minister of State to shake his head and say that he cannot provide those answers. If we are to allow the Bill to proceed, answers to such questions are germane to the decision that we must take.
We are debating whether taxes will go up or down, so we need to know what the Scottish Parliament is likely to be able to do. We need to know the answer to questions such as what will be the remuneration of members of the Scottish Parliament? How many staff will be required to run it, and what will be the costs involved? How will the Scottish Parliament be funded—out of the Scottish block or, more widely. from United Kingdom funds?

What effect will the Scottish Parliament have on the Scottish block grant? Will the Scottish Parliament have powers of spending over education, the national health service or agriculture in Scotland? What powers will it be able to exercise in relation to the police, transport and planning in Scotland? Whether taxes are likely to go up or down depends on the answers to those questions. If the people of Scotland are to make a reasonable judgment, they need to know the answers before they vote in a referendum.
What powers will the Scottish Parliament have to provide housing in Scotland? Who will be liable for the taxes levied by the Scottish Parliament? Such questions must at least form part of a White Paper, and if they do they will have to be debated at length and in depth so that no question mark is left in the minds of the people of Scotland when they vote.
As we have heard, in previous referendums of this sort it has always been the practice to have the legislation in place before the referendum, precisely so that the people who vote know the answers to their questions and can make an appropriate judgment. I know, and I am sure my colleagues know, that the reason why the Government are fudging the issue is that at the last referendum, despite the fact that for years the opinion polls appeared to show great demand for devolution in Scotland, when the relevant legislation was introduced and examined and its implications for Scotland became known, support for devolution dropped dramatically and opposition to it increased dramatically. It is to avoid that danger—[Interruption.]The Secretary of State for Scotland arrives at precisely the right moment—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should resume his seat while I am talking. He should direct his remarks to the amendment. I am reluctant to interrupt his speech but it is going wide of the amendment.

Mr. Ancram: I thought that I was addressing the amendment. Our amendment No. 145 requires the leaving out of the word "varying" and the insertion of the word, "raising".

The First Deputy Chairman: The amendments, including the right hon. Gentleman's, are about tax-raising powers. That is what he must discuss. The wider issue of devolution is not up for debate. It is not my fault that the amendments are so restrictive, but he must stick to them.

Mr. Ancram: I accept your ruling, Mr. Martin. My difficulty, which I am sure that you share, is whether tax-raising powers are likely to be used. That will be in the minds of voters at a referendum. For them to be able to make a judgment they will need to know what powers a Scottish Parliament is to have. My point—I hope that I am not transgressing—is that if that question is to be posed in that way and is to make any sense to voters at a referendum, they will require that extra information. I am suggesting—within the limits of the amendments, I hope—that the Government have approached the issue as they have because they know that providing that information in detail, or even accepting the substitution of "tax-raising" for "tax-varying", suggested by the hon.


Member for Orkney and Shetland, would damage their chances of getting their proposals accepted in a referendum.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the least that the people of Scotland need is a clear undertaking that the favourable grant formula, which is very beneficial to Scotland, would not be affected by the tax-raising powers? Is it not vital that there should be a yes or no from the new Secretary of State on that point before any referendum?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing another question to add to my list of important questions that need to be addressed if people are to make a reasonable choice in the referendum. The Secretary of State arrived a few minutes ago and raised his eyebrows, but he had not heard the debate. I think that he and I were in the same studio in 1979 when the results of the referendum came through. He arrived in the morning triumphant, expecting an overwhelming vote in favour of devolution. At the end of the day, I think that the figures were 33 per cent. for and 31 per cent. against, with the rest not bothering to vote. That was because the people of Scotland had the information on which to make the judgment. If we are to take seriously his assertion that the referendum is a democratic exercise, we need the information that I have asked for. If the amendments are passed, we shall be able to get it.

Mr. Dalyell: I wonder whether we could have some clarification, perhaps tonight, on who is to pay the tax. Is it to be anyone domiciled in Scotland? Some of us want an early statement on that, because, as I said during the debate on the Queen's Speech, part of the difficulty is that in international taxation, state borders provide the touchstone for separating the taxing rights of one fiscal regime from those of another. Where the border is not real, the imposition of tax by reference to the familiar tests of residence, domicile, source of income and location of trading operations is likely to be complex and expensive at best and unfair and a major brake on business in Scotland at worst.
We must face up to the issue. I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). If we are not careful, England will be, de facto, a tax haven, given that the border is not real in the way that federal states have real borders.
The hon. Gentleman could say that the Liberal Democrat solution is a federal one, but that would be different. If the argument is that there should be a federal state, my difficulty might arise less strongly because in a federal state the border would be far more real. However, given the Government's proposals, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we must face up to the question of the border because of the creation of a de facto tax haven. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking for a warning of this point, it was made at column 292 on 16 May.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is raising an important point which, when we come to the White Paper and the devolution Bill, will rightly be dealt with in

considerable detail. I am interested in what he says about the border and the advantages of federalism. I believe ultimately in a federal solution for the United Kingdom. What we are debating—the subject matter of the referendum—is a step towards that. I do not understand one point, however.
At the moment, we have a border that is a legal border because there are important differences between living in Carlisle and living in Dumfries in terms of criminal law and juvenile justice. At the moment, we have a meaningful border. Although there are many advantages in federalism, the border issue will not necessarily be any more clear cut with a federal state than under the proposals that we are debating.

Mr. Dalyell: These are complicated matters. I reply partly in terms of a problem that the hon. Gentleman raised—the problem of Scots who may spend a considerable time, possibly more than half the year, working outside Scotland. That point is not just an Aunt Sally; it is the problem of those who have rotating jobs. The matter was raised in acute form the other day by one of the major employers, Mr. Stewart of Scottish and Newcastle, who said that it was a real problem for the company's many executives and middle-rank employees. There should be early clarification of the matter because the more information we have the better and the healthier the debate will be.
We must get clear the residency rule. What about those who are on temporary secondment? That is a very real issue because there are lots of people on temporary secondment, which operates in both directions. It is no good saying that this is an arcane issue. For my sins—I do not know whether the Secretary of State has had the same experience—I was a member of nine Finance Bill Committees. One learns that one is legislating not for people of good will or for the mass of people who want to do the right thing, but for those who want to exploit the law to the fullest extent in order to get maximum benefit for themselves. That is part of the reason why laws have to be so tight in this case.

Mr. Fallon: Is it, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's position that we cannot finalise the details of either clause 1 or the shape of the ballot paper until we receive answers to those questions?

Mr. Dalyell: I have always taken the view—I have to be totally candid about this—that the meaningful referendum is on the question, "Do you approve of the 1997–98 Scotland Act as passed by Parliament?" Incidentally, throughout the election, that was the answer I made crystal clear to anyone who cared to ask. I am saying nothing in June that I did not say in March and April. I make that quite clear.
The Secretary of State courteously gave me a response in our previous debate on the Barnett formula—on the key question of whether the Barnett formula is to be preserved. I looked carefully at the response and I wish to ask the Minister who will wind up whether he is in a position to add anything to the answer that I was given the last time I asked the question.

Mr. Salmond: I was interested, as always, in the speech made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow


(Mr. Dalyell). I suppose that he had some reason to speak on the issue; he was once described as a lonely and isolated figure—because he supported a referendum—by the previous spokesman for the Labour party in Scotland. Things have moved on; the hon. Gentleman may still be lonely and isolated, but not because of his support for a referendum.

Mr. Dalyell: It never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that it would be a pre-legislative referendum. My constituent in Linlithgow, if I may so refer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), is right to say that I was described as lonely and isolated. Various other comments were made at the same time, but we will stick at lonely and isolated. Never did I dream of anything other than a post-legislative referendum on the final outcome of the parliamentary discussions.

Mr. Salmond: I happily accept the designation as the hon. Member 's constituent. I did not vote for him—after much reflection, I decided to vote in Banff and Buchan—none the less, I am well represented in the House by the hon. Gentleman's efforts, and if I ever have a problem I will beat a path to his door.
I accept that if we are to have a referendum on the proposals, it is more logical to have a post-legislative referendum. That is a reasonable point to make. I would like an assurance from the Minister that, if he has his way in the pre-legislative referendum, we will not also have a post-legislative referendum.

Mr. McLeish: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: I see a helpful shake of the head from the Minister. Given the litany we heard from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) of the permutations that the policy has gone through in the past year, I am sure that the Minister will accept that we need his firm assurance on that point, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and the Conservatives but to the great relief of the rest of us.

Mr. Edward Leigh: What happens if the referendum vote is yes and, as a result of our debates, major changes are made to the legislation, so we end up with something very different from the White Paper that the Scottish people will consider this summer? Is not that possibility one reason for having a post-legislative referendum?

Mr. Salmond: If the House were to decide that independence for Scotland was a much better way forward, as I have always argued, that would be a substantive change and I would argue for an independence referendum. The hon. Gentleman does not seriously believe that there will be such a radical change, but if he has hopes that I can nourish I would be pleased to hear them. We cannot anticipate both a pre-legislative and a post-legislative referendum, because that would try the patience of this Scottish electorate beyond reasonable endurance.
I make a diametrically opposed interpretation of the Bill to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). He argued that the Government's intention in suggesting

a two-question referendum was to buttress the referendum and devolution proposals. I reached the opposite conclusion. I think that the reason for the referendum, without going through the full route march of the explanation, was to buttress the Government's prospects in the general election. The intention was to remove aspects of the constitutional proposals from the general election campaign.
The former right hon. Member for Stirling is but a distant memory, and has been replaced by the much more amenable hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who is in her place as I would expect. Some people in Scottish politics felt a year or so ago that the tartan tax campaign being waged by the then Secretary of State for Scotland was successful. I never shared that opinion: the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, who was replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), had a much better tactical campaign in the 1992 election. He kept his major arguments until the immediate onset of the campaign. It struck many of us that the former right hon. Member for Stirling fired too many of his bullets on the tartan tax far too early.
I have no doubt that the decision to go for a two-question referendum was a direct result of fears about what the tartan tax campaign was doing to Labour's prospects not on the devolution proposals but in the general election. Those fears were misplaced, as we all probably agree in the comfortable aftermath of the general election. Unfortunately, they have left the House and the Scottish people with a proposal that does not make serious sense when it is analysed.
Such analysis has been extremely well conducted by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who pointed out that, in effect, one referendum, two questions produces a multi-option referendum. It gives us not the multi-option referendum that has been generally supported at one time or another across Scotland by many Labour Members, but one that offers a choice between the status quo, which was soundly rejected—it came third in most of the constitutional polls over the past few years—and a Parliament without tax-raising powers, which is not supported by any serious body of opinion in Scotland or, indeed, through the proposals of the Government or the Liberal Democrats. How can it be right to offer people a multi-option referendum through the device of two questions but not offer a proper, serious multi-option referendum of a choice between independence, devolution and the status quo?
Isolating the tax-varying power as part of a referendum is the worst possible thing to do if one is serious about a devolution proposal going through. In the 1992 general election, the campaign for which the Secretary of State for Scotland and I remember extremely well, the issue of a tartan tax was not raised to nearly the same extent—because it was then part of the convention proposal for what was called assigned revenues. The tax-varying power was part of a wider taxation remit. There was not the same isolation of part of the proposal, which is extremely weak and vulnerable to attack and criticism.
I cannot conceive of how anyone who is serious, optimistic and genuine about a devolution commitment thinks that extracting the weakest part of the devolution scheme and subjecting it to a second question, as opposed to doing so with, for example, a more popular aspect of it such as proportional representation, is in the interests


of constitutional change. That is an extremely dangerous, gambler's move on devolution. I nourish the deep suspicion that some of those who thought that that was a good idea—I excuse the Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench of this entirely—did not sincerely wish the second question to be endorsed.
As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, what would happen if we got a yes, no result? The Liberal Democrats have been long-standing supporters of Scottish self government, yet in such circumstances, as they signalled in interviews, they would find themselves perhaps voting against a self-government proposal. What logic is there to a proposal that probably or possibly risks losing the votes of part of the coalition in favour of devolution as a result of a two-question referendum?
My party's main interest in the proceedings is to secure a genuine multi-option referendum to allow real free choice between the concepts of independence, devolution and the status quo—the referendum which is overwhelmingly supported in Scotland and which has been supported on both sides of the House. It was, incidentally, first a Liberal idea in the 1960s, proposed by the soon-to-be Lord Steel, so it has been supported by all parties and is still the right referendum to have, if we are to go through a referendum process.
It would be an improvement to subtract the second question. It would be in the interests of not confusing the electorate and of those of us who want constitutional progress in Scotland. In tomorrow's debate I intend to force the issue of a multi-option referendum; in the present debate I am inclined to support the amendment.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), because I recall that, more than 20 years ago, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a rector of Edinburgh university and invited the right hon. Gentleman and me to become members of a commission to consider the workings of the university and, among other things, the repercussions on the university and on higher education in Scotland in general of the then Labour Government's proposal to set up a Scottish Parliament. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman was a keen supporter of the principle of a Scottish Assembly at that time and that he wanted to extend the powers proposed by the then Government to include the power to legislate on Scottish higher education.

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not setting out intentionally to mislead. I was a supporter of devolution in 1968 and until about 1972, when I suddenly realised the cost of it to the Scottish people. Certainly, by the time I served on that commission with him, I had seen the light.

Mr. Canavan: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to rewrite history. He should read the manifesto on which he stood in Berwick and East Lothian at the general election in 1974, when the Scottish Tory party had a clear commitment to set up a Scottish Parliament, or Assembly, as it was called at the time. No wonder the voters of Berwick and East Lothian turfed him out; he then sought refuge in Edinburgh, South, and the people there turfed

him out, after which he sought refuge in Devizes and in Belfast—he has been all over the place, trying to get power and a safe seat in his precious United Kingdom.
I listened with more respect to what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who were, and still are, our partners in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill, because I would far rather we spent our time on legislation to set up a Scottish Parliament instead of pussyfooting around and wasting time with this legislation.
The Government are clearly determined to hold a referendum, but I fail to understand the need for two propositions to be put to the people of Scotland—one on the principle of a Scottish Parliament and another on whether that Parliament should have revenue-raising powers.
There is no meaningful Parliament in the world that does not have revenue-raising powers. Even the smallest authority in Britain—if we do not want to talk about English parish councils we could mention the smallest local authority in Scotland, Clackmannanshire council—has revenue-raising powers, of which the last Tory Government approved. Of course, the Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful than any local authority.

Mr. Salmond: But not in terms of control over its own revenue. Clackmannanshire council controls approximately 10 per cent. of its revenue. With the tax-varying powers, the maximum that a Scottish Parliament can control will be 3 per cent.

Mr. Canavan: I take that point. Some of us argued within the convention that there should be more revenue-raising powers, including a case, perhaps, for all the revenue-raising within Scotland to be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman and his party boycotted the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Had he not done so, he might have been there to lend his support to that argument, which was advanced by others as well as by me.

Mr. Garnier: To follow through his argument, could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what the Welsh people have done to offend the Labour party, that they are not allowed a revenue-raising Assembly?

Mr. Canavan: I shall leave it to hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies to put the case on behalf of their people.
I was saying that the Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful—

Mr. Stunell: rose—

Mr. Canavan: I think that we are running out of time.
The Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful than any local authority because it will have a budget of about £1 4 billion per annum. It will also have the power to legislate on matters such as housing and the national health service in Scotland, as well as education, tourism, and aspects of industry and the economy.
If the people of Scotland want to spend an extra 1p or 2p on income tax for a better national health service, or for better educational opportunities for their children, surely that should be their basic democratic right.
If the Scottish Parliament had no revenue-raising powers, it would be completely dependent on the revenue-raising powers and votes of this Parliament. It would have no fiscal autonomy or responsibility. So it is not very clever to separate the Parliament from its revenue-raising powers by asking two separate questions on, as I understand it, two separate ballot papers.
I still see no need for a referendum, especially after the mandate that we got from the people of Scotland and Wales at the general election. Even so, a single-question referendum is better than a two-question referendum, so even on the principle of the lesser of two evils, the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has considerable merit. It does not exclude specific reference to tax-varying powers, but puts the matter in a single simple proposition, to be determined by the people of Scotland.

Sir Teddy Taylor: For the first time in my parliamentary career, I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I hope that, on reflection, hon. Members will vote for the amendment, because if we do not have that wording, it would be outrageous to propose to the people of Scotland an Assembly without tax-raising powers.
For reasons that hon. Members well know, I oppose the principle of a Scottish Assembly, or Parliament, altogether. However, we can be sure of one thing—that a Parliament without tax-raising powers would be a disaster for Scotland and its people, and for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Bearing in mind the fact that Scotland is a nation in which people are conscious of their aims and objectives, if everything were going wrong in Scotland—all the hospitals and schools did not have enough resources, the road programme was not working, and so on—it would be blamed on the British Parliament in London, despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament would be sitting there. That would simply stoke up the demand for independence and help to break up of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Government will avoid putting before the people of Scotland what might appear a nice option—a Parliament that will not cost them anything. The second advantage of specifying tax-raising powers would be to remind people that a Scottish Parliament would cost them a great deal of money.
Before the previous referendum, I found that one of the reasons for the move against devolution during the campaign was that people had not previously been aware of the full cost of the operation. It would have included not only the cost of all the new Members of Parliament and their offices, with all the expenses involved, but the substantial additional bureaucracy.
The third advantage of mentioning tax-raising powers is that it would allow a debate on how we support Scotland. I had the privilege many years ago—probably before most hon. Members were born—of being a Minister in the Scottish Office before I had to resign when the Prime Minister signed the treaty of Rome. Every year we had to negotiate a formula or grant whereby we got cash for Scotland. There was then a differential by

comparison with England of about 14 per cent.— a substantial amount. People in Scotland are not fully aware of the substantial additional funding they receive.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Rubbish.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is not rubbish. I negotiated the figures. I assure the hon. Gentleman that although the nationalists have different views, the plain fact is that there is substantial additional funding.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Teddy Taylor: My final point will answer the hon. Gentleman's question; I know what it will be. As he was about to propose, the best question for the referendum would be to ask the people of Scotland whether they want to be fully independent. A referendum on devolution could lead to over-government, extra spending and huge waste and uncertainty.
There is no middle way between independence for Scotland and the present situation. Precious few powers are left in the assembly in Westminster. Hon. Members know well that we constantly make speeches about things over which we have no control. Hon. Members shout about the fishing industry when, effectively, all the power has gone. They complain about the cruelty involved in the export of live animals, but their power has gone. If we set up a new, separate Parliament in Scotland, in addition to the county and district councils and this Parliament, it will create a mess of over-government. It would be infinitely better for the people of Scotland if they were not misguided by misleading questions and made up their minds about whether Scotland as a separate nation should be independent. I therefore hope that the House will consider the amendment because it is more realistic, truthful and sensible. Irrespective of the question, I hope that the people of Scotland will have the common sense once again to reject this costly nonsense, which will do no good to them, to Scotland or to the United Kingdom. For the first time in many years, I support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, under the Tories, 4,500 quango members ran Scotland at a cost of nearly £15 billion? Surely it is time for democratic control by elected members.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I will form a popular front with the hon. Gentleman to get rid of quangos and get back to democracy. Sadly, if he looks at the Labour manifesto, he will find that the new Government will create lots of new quangos that will cost more and employ a great deal more bureaucracy. If he and I can work together to fight quangos and support democracy, I will be glad to form a new popular front with him and the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Garnier: Several questions must be asked about this part of the Bill. The questions raised by the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) are pertinent. It is a pity that the Government have ignored them.
The Government propose to impose pre-legislative referendums on the people of Scotland and Wales. People will be invited to discuss before the referendums many questions to which they will not be provided with answers. What will be the remit of the Scottish Parliament? What will be the constituencies? If it is to be elected by proportional representation, will it use a list system, a partial list system or the additional member system? What will be the pay, conditions and allowances of its Members? My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East asked what it would cost. When and how often will it sit? What will be its hours? Will it sit one month out of 12 or will it be a full-time body? Will it be a condition of membership that Members of the Scottish Parliament should not also be Members of the United Kingdom Parliament? Will they also be allowed to be Members of the European Parliament? May they be members of district, regional or island councils? Will the tax raised by the Scottish Parliament go to the United Kingdom Treasury? Will it go to some new Scottish Treasury? Or will it go into some other basin into which to pour the largesse of the people of Scotland? Who will pay the tax, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked? What will happen to the Scottish grant that we have heard so much about? It is not good enough for those on the Treasury Bench to talk about the residence tax for the taxation system; it is a far more complicated matter than that. Will it be examined at any stage during the debate on the referendum?
The only sensible referendum question is that proposed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, the leader of the Scottish National party, and that is to offer the Scottish people full independence or nothing. If they vote for—
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 20th May relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation be now considered.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Ordered,
That the said committee do meet with any committee appointed by the Lords on Thursday 5th June at half-past Four o'clock.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mrs. Ann Taylor relating to Modernisation of House of Commons Procedure not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and the said Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Mr. Michael Fallon: Object.

Bahrain

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Mr. George Galloway: I begin by warmly congratulating the Minister of State his appointment. He will know that I predicted high office for him when I served under him as a humble foot soldier on an obscure Bill in Committee, which was considered in a room along the Committee Corridor some years ago. My hon. Friend has not disappointed me. With his progressive record and his deep and genuine commitment to liberty around the world, he will form part of a Labour Foreign Office which I believe will be a beacon of hope for the powerless and the downtrodden in all countries.
The Government have started in such an inspiring way on the domestic as well as the international scene and nothing that I shall say this evening should be taken by my hon. Friend as any kind of criticism. Rather, I want to probe the way in which the Government intend to practise in their policy towards Bahrain what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary so eloquently preached in the Foreign Office mission statement, which has resounded to this country's credit throughout the world.
I am well aware that no country's foreign policy can afford to be entirely selfless, and the first priority of any Government is the well-being of their own citizens, their own economy and their own strategic interests. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly said, however, we all of us are citizens of the world and misery and turmoil in one place inevitably have consequences for the rest of us.
One such area is Bahrain. Since the emir ordered the suspension of the constitution in August 1975 and closed down the Parliament, extreme instability has enveloped the island, with repression, arbitrary arrests, torture, forceable exile and the shooting down of peaceful demonstrators demanding nothing more than the restoration of their Parliament.
In 1994, a petition signed by more than 25,000 people—Sunni and Shi'ite, men and women, people of the left, right and centre—was to be presented to the emir. One might think that that was routine, but the response of the Bahrain Government was far from routine. The leaders of the popular movement were arrested, as were thousands of others. That was followed by more oppression, more deaths under torture and further exile.
Bahrain became the first country in the world to deport its own citizens and demand that other countries refuse to give them asylum. In January 1995, I met three of that unique class of deportees in the Palace of Westminster, where I hosted a press conference for them. The last person to speak to them as they boarded the plane into exile was a British security agent, who was working under Colonel Ian Henderson: a man at the very heart of the darkness in Bahrain.
No sooner had those deportees arrived in this country than the Bahraini Foreign Minister flew to London to demand—successfully to date—that the three be denied political asylum. I know that the Minister is aware that those interested in human rights in this country and the Bahraini people are watching closely to see the outcome of the claims for asylum by Sheikh Ali Salman, Sheikh


Hamza al-Dairi and Sayed Haidar al-Sitri. My first request is that the Minister draws to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the keen interest that there is in that asylum application and the need for its fair and swift adjudication.
Torture is commonplace in Bahrain—of that there can be no doubt. The Minister's predecessor, the former right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes, said several times in response to questions from me and other hon. Members that he had raised the issue of the abuse of prisoners with the Bahraini authorities. The United States State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other international human rights organisations have produced veritable mountains of documentary evidence of such abuse and torture.
My hon. Friend the Minister has raised those concerns with the Bahrainis in the past and more recently, but I must ask him an obvious question. If, in the teeth of all that evidence, of international opprobrium and expressions of concern from my hon. Friend and his predecessor, the Bahraini people are still being shot like dogs in the streets by security forces led by British mercenaries and are still being abused on the torture tables in the dungeons of the regime, has not the time come when merely raising concerns is not enough?
Thanks to the new Labour Foreign Office mission statement, we have an opportunity to move beyond mere rhetoric towards practical, internationally co-ordinated measures to bring pressure to bear on persistent and unheeding offenders against basic human rights, of whom Bahrain is undoubtedly one.
It is clear that the Bahraini dictatorship is nervous about the Foreign Secretary's mission statement. That can be measured by the intensification of contacts sought by the Bahrainis. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's notice that the very first visitor from the Arabian Gulf to arrive on his doorstep was the Bahraini Minister of Transport. Nor will he have missed seeing in the respected Arabic daily Al-Hayat the photograph of the son of the crown prince, grandson of the emir—it is not so much a one-party state, more a family business—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at their meeting last week. The report has the Bahraini Minister reviewing the deep relations between this country and Bahrain, and in particular our security and defence co-operation.
I am sure that I would not be the only person to be grateful if the Minister were to elaborate on the precise security and defence arrangements between our two countries. How deep are they, and how are they affected by the arrogant refusal of the Bahraini dictators to listen to their friends in Britain? I am not alone in wanting to know what safeguards have been built into that co-operation to ensure that no equipment, no training and no British personnel are used in any way against the civilian population of Bahrain. After all, even the previous Government, whose mission statement was deafening in its silence about human rights, had very clear safeguards on the sale of Hawk trainer aircraft to the Indonesian Government.
I am not asking for the cancellation of British-Bahraini defence co-operation; nor, for that matter, are the leaders of the Bahrain opposition in London, one of whose

distinguishing characteristics is their moderation. However, despite their moderate and peaceful character, it has been brought to my attention and, I suspect, to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister that the movements of the London-based opposition are now being monitored by agents of the regime. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to take this opportunity to assure the House of the Government's commitment to the well-being of those opposition leaders while they are here in exile.
The Bahraini opposition are not asking for a change of government in Bahrain; they are not asking for the overthrow of the emir; they are not asking to form a Government in Bahrain; they are not even asking for full Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. All that they are asking is for the emir to restore the Bahraini constitution that he suspended in 1975.
My next request to my hon. Friend the Minister is that he place clearly on record this evening that it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government—Her Majesty's Labour Government—that the suspended constitution be reinstated in Bahrain. I believe that, as an interim measure, we should impress on the regime the urgent need to begin dialogue with the opposition. The political leaders must be released, in particular Sheikh Al-Jumri, without whom no such dialogue could possibly be achieved. I believe that my hon. Friend should cause our ambassador in Bahrain himself to meet the opposition, both as a sign of our support for human rights and constitutional government and to send a clear message to the Bahraini Government that we mean business when we raise our concerns with them.
There is ample precedent. In dictatorships all over the world, past and present, our officials maintain regular contact and dialogue—if only for information purposes—with those who are struggling for basic human rights in their own countries. What reason would there be for not doing the same in Bahrain?
Yesterday, while preparing for the debate, I had the doubtful—because distressing—privilege of a visit from one of the victims of the repression to my office in Westminster. I shall call him Mohammed. He is 19 years old, and in another time or another place he would have been a normal young student. In my office, he took off his shirt to display a body hideously pock-marked by gunshot. All over his back and down his left arm, pieces of shrapnel nestled under his agonised skin. What was his crime? To be in a demonstration by school students who were protesting at the emir's refusal to receive the petition that I mentioned earlier.
Mohammed, however, is merely one in thousands. More than 5,000 people on that tiny island have been detained just in the past three years, and at least 1,500 such detainees remain in gaol without trial, undergoing or fearing torture. Many are held under the infamous state security law, which empowers the Minister of the Interior to order the detention of political suspects for up to three years without charge.
Such trials as have been held are frequently taken by the state security court, often in camera. In those trials, evidence usually rests solely on confessions extracted from defendants under torture. No appeal is allowed against its rulings, and, more important, death sentences passed by the court are subject to no appeal.
The Bahraini Government promised the last British Government that they would cease to use the state security court for such trials. They have broken that promise,


and continue to use the SSC to date. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that Bahrain's state security court is an affront to all international norms of justice, and should be suspended immediately.
According to a report in The Guardian on 13 May, a detainee was tortured in Bahrain in a dungeon fitted with British-supplied torture equipment. Have the Government had time to investigate that allegation, and if not, will my hon. Friend undertake to do so? If it transpires that that torture equipment originated in this country will the Minister refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to prosecuting the British companies that are involved?
The Bahraini Government refuse all requests by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for permission to visit Bahrain and investigate reports of the ill-treatment of detainees. I am sure that the Minister will join me in demanding that reputable and respected human rights organisations should be allowed access to Bahrain.
I said that I would return to the person who is at the heart of the darkness of the Bahraini regime. I am sad to say that he is a British citizen and sadder still to say that he is a Scotsman, Colonel Ian Henderson. Henderson might have walked from the fevered pages of a Graham Greene novel. He was an interrogator of the Mau Mau during colonial rule in Kenya in the bitter struggle for independence. So brutally efficient were his methods that, on obtaining independence for Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta tried to re-engage him in his own security apparatus. So notorious was Henderson that a demonstration was mounted by his victims and the whole affair became so scandalous that Kenyatta was forced to deport him. Via Ian Smith's Rhodesia, he ended up as the right hand man of the Al-Khalifa.
In the Gulf, Henderson is known as the butcher of Bahrain. He is the head of the security services and director of intelligence and has gathered around him the kind of British dogs of war, mercenaries, whose guns and electric shock equipment are for hire to anyone who will pay the price.
It has been commonplace for previous Ministers to brush off criticism of Henderson with the claim that they have no responsibility for his actions, but I do not think that that is entirely true. After all, the House rightly made it possible to pursue, try and punish the British sex tourists who pollute the Philippines and Thailand with their paedophile proclivities. How much more have we responsibility similarly to pursue people who torture and murder for money and who carry Her Majesty's passports?
The House rightly made it possible to try people in this country for war crimes that had been committed in Ukraine or Belorussia more than 50 years ago. I have legal advice which says that the United Nations convention against torture places an obligation on Britain to arrest or attempt to extradite Henderson. Lord Avebury said in another place that, should Henderson return here, having eaten his fill at the trough of the dictatorship, he will face a battery of civil actions for damages from victims of his crimes.
That is not enough. Ian Henderson is Britain's Klaus Barbie. The European Parliament has called Britain to prosecute Henderson and there is another fundamental point that cannot be gainsaid about Henderson's provenance. Britain's relations with the island of Bahrain

have been warm, close and special for 150 years. Ian Henderson was appointed as deputy director of security on the island in 1966, which was five years before the British left and the territory became independent. Therefore, he was appointed by a British Government, I regret to say by a British Labour Government, to his position in the secret state apparatus of Bahrain.
Of course, the Minister would be right to say that Ian Henderson is not an employee of ours and has nothing to do with us. That is true up to a point, but the Minister must know that that is not how it looks to the man on the torture table looking up at Henderson. It is not how it looks to the demonstrators who are falling in the streets in a hail of gunfire that is directed by him, and it is not how it looks to the wailing families as they bury their dead, people who have been killed by Henderson's forces for the crime of demanding democratic reform.
We as a people have a clear duty to repudiate the conduct of one of our citizens in the service of a foreign power who stands condemned of crimes against humanity. I hope that I have done enough in the debate to make the case that, while of course we must continue to do business with Bahrain and engage constructively in the process of offering its people help and assistance to build out of that autocracy, it cannot be business on the same basis as before. The Bahraini Government must know that Britain now has a Minister and a Government who mean what they say and say what they mean, a Government who really believe in human rights and democracy.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on introducing this short but important debate on human rights and the specific question of Bahrain. His interest not just in Bahrain but in the broader topic of human rights is well known. He has raised some specific issues. If my hon. Friend is agreeable to this, I should like to make a few general points about human rights, deal with his specific questions and, I hope, sum up by talking about our approach to Bahrain in the future.
There has been much interest in the House and elsewhere on the issue of human rights. My hon. Friend is right to point out that on a number of occasions, both in written and oral questions, I have raised my concerns about the human rights regime in Bahrain. I did that in opposition and it is natural and important that what we have said in opposition should colour and shape our policies in government. Let me therefore give the first commitment to my hon. Friend: there will be continuity in terms of the values and approach that we adopt.
I remind my hon. Friend that in his speech on 12 May my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear that this Government value an ethical dimension in their foreign policy and that we shall give substantial priority to human rights and try to pursue that agenda through international forums, bilateral relationships and other means available to us.
In relation specifically to Bahrain, I have already had the opportunity to meet the Bahraini ambassador. My hon. Friend referred to one or two items already in my diary and I suspect that he may have some predictions as to future meetings. I took the opportunity of that meeting to raise our concern about human rights. I stressed a number


of issues. Our discussion was frank and the atmosphere was one in which it was possible for me to engage in a constructive dialogue, which I was keen to do.
I welcomed recent visits to Bahrain by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, but I also strongly emphasised to the Bahraini ambassador that transparency in human rights is crucial. I emphasised the need for Amnesty International or any similar organisation to be involved in monitoring the situation closely. I shall continue to take up that commitment and I have suggested to the ambassador that it might be a sensible approach for him and his Government to get in touch with Amnesty International.
I give a clear commitment to my hon. Friend and to others who have taken a keen interest in the matter that when we feel that there is a need to address these issues with the Bahraini authorities we shall not hesitate to do so constructively. I will talk about our overall approach in relation to human rights, but I can say to my hon. Friend that our commitments are clear and our style and approach will be clear, not just on this issue, but on others as well.
Last week, when I was in the middle east, I was asked about the Government's approach to human rights. I said at that stage that our approach would not be a la carte: it is a universal principle that we are trying to promote and we will promote it in each case and take each opportunity.
May I raise one issue that I thought my hon. Friend might raise and did not? As he knows, there has been much publicity with regard to the treatment received by Sheikh Abdul Amir Al Jamri, a senior Shia cleric and spiritual leader who has remained in detention in Bahrain since January 1996. The Government of Bahrain have always stated that allegations such as those about the lack of family visits and the sheikh's maltreatment were unfounded. In my recent meetings with the Bahraini ambassador, I addressed that question. I have been assured that Al Jamri was in good health, that there was access to medical attention whenever he needed it and that he was visited by his family on a regular basis. This is an area on which I pressed for openness and transparency because the best way for the Bahraini authorities to remove fears about Al Jamri and others is to have independent international monitoring of the human rights regime. Amnesty International or any other organisation with a similar reputation could play a valuable part in that.
My hon. Friend raised some important specific issues and I shall try to address the six main points raised in his speech.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the asylum applications are under consideration. Naturally, they are confidential between the parties concerned. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware of the views expressed by my hon. Friend.
There was also the question whether defence equipment exports would be used in internal repression in Bahrain. I remind the House that on 22 May my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the initiation of an urgent review of the detailed criteria used in licence applications for the export of conventional weapons. New criteria will be made available to the House as soon as

that review is completed. We will then look closely at any evidence that British companies within our jurisdiction may be involved in supplying materials or expertise for the purposes of torture or any other human rights violations. I give my hon. Friend that clear commitment.
That clear commitment applies also to the points that my hon. Friend made about the article in The Guardianon 13 May. He will appreciate that I am not in a position to comment on the specific allegations, simply because we do not have the material on those allegations. However, if my hon. Friend or anyone else is able to provide that material, we will look into the points made. We shall certainly investigate the matter further on the basis of the article in The Guardian. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be writing to him in the near future with our response to the points made.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the safety of Bahraini exiles in the United Kingdom. Over the past year or so, I have had the opportunity to meet some of the Bahraini exiles and some of those leading the Bahraini opposition. I share my hon. Friend's view that those responsible for the opposition in this country are moderate people with a moderate set of demands. Therefore, we would be concerned about the safety of any individual exile. We would view with the utmost concern any suggestion of a specific threat against anyone in the United Kingdom. Where specific complaints are brought to our attention or to the attention of any hon. Member, we will investigate them further. If there is any specific evidence in that respect, we will pursue the matter. We will give the utmost priority to the safety of those in exile here.
My hon. Friend referred to the state security court. One of the points that we have already stressed and will continue to stress to the Bahraini authorities is the need for due process of law in all criminal cases. That is an important element in any human rights regime and we shall continue to make that argument.
My hon. Friend referred in some detail to the case of Mr. Ian Henderson and made a number of disturbing allegations in relation to the activities of Mr. Henderson. If those allegations are true, they would be viewed with great concern and dismay by Her Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend talked about the possibility of legal action being taken against Mr. Henderson on his return. That is a matter for others. However, I wish to make it clear that the Government would take a strong negative view of any action along the lines suggested in relation to Mr. Henderson. We deplore those actions if the allegations are true.
In the two minutes remaining to me, I want to consider Bahrain and the human rights points raised by my hon. Friend within the context of a more general view of the Government's principles and the way in which we intend to promote human rights.
This country is entering a new period of foreign policy. Wherever I have travelled, and with whomsoever I have engaged in debate, there has been a tremendous interest in the Foreign Secretary's remark that there should be an ethical dimension to foreign policy. That involves important tactical questions about how we pursue that


ethical dimension. In the vast majority of cases, we will strive for a constructive engagement. We will do that with Bahrain. Putting it crudely, there are sticks and carrots and there are difficult tactical choices to be made. We will engage with Bahrain over a range of commercial, political and regional issues. That was the policy of the previous Government and we intend to continue it. Within that framework of engagement, we are keen to ensure that, as an important agenda item, there will be discussion of human rights.
We have had a short but important debate tonight. It has been the first opportunity for this Government to talk about the new ethical dimension in foreign policy. I hope

that my hon. Friend will see that there is a difference and that there are changes. I have attempted, in a way that I have not always noticed in Adjournment debates, to answer the specific questions raised—

Mr. Galloway: It has never happened before.

Mr. Fatchett: Indeed, it may never have happened before. I hope that, in that sense, I have set two precedents—the moral dimension to foreign policy and answering questions in an Adjournment debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.